Arch First Impressions

itsmeh · 2009-03-13 07:23:42

So, I hear great things about it and thought I would try it, wow, i can't even get it installed in vmware.

problem 1.

I select "run from live cd" so i can test how well it runs, i end up at a console screen , if i type startx, nothing happens, i only get the install option, I dont get it

problem 2.

I tried to install, it doesn't detect my cd (which is my mounted iso image in vmware) , so i skipped that part, and tried to format my virtural harddrive, which it fails to do as well.

So, why can't it have a nice graphical installer (like ubuntu or most other distros) to make it far easier to install. Or maybe i am not doing something right when i run the "live cd" i was hoping to check it out, then install it from the live mode (like redhat, ubuntu, etc)

Ruckus · 2009-03-13 07:26:04

I suggest you read the Beginners Guide.

itsmeh · 2009-03-13 07:29:45

I don't see anything about running the live cd in the guide, i would like to test it before installing it. Should it give me a gui when i run it from the live cd?

fwojciec · 2009-03-13 07:33:46

Arch comes with no X by default. That's a part of Arch philosophy. Not everyone wants/needs a GUI, so why have it installed by default?
Arch is not Ubuntu, it targets a different type of user than Ubuntu does, so it's logical that it makes different design choices as well.

lilith2k3 · 2009-03-13 07:34:05

Perhaps sometime in the near future, this may meet your demands.
http://chakra-project.org/

itsmeh · 2009-03-13 07:35:41

so of what use is the "live cd" mode?

Statix · 2009-03-13 07:35:49

Not sure what you mean by "live cd". Arch only has an install cd, which despite being technically a livecd, is not graphical at all. There are a few graphical livecds based on arch. Maybe you're thinking of one of those?

Now before you get started with Arch I suggest you look at the wiki (specifically the About Arch section.) The whole idea behind Arch is simplicity, so a graphical installer sort of goes against everything Arch stands for. Simple is not defined by Arch users as meaning easy, but rather logical and without unneeded additions.

If you're looking for something easy to install and use Arch isn't the way to go. If you're looking for something that will be an amazing learning experience and give you real control and freedom over your computer, you'll love it.

Ashren · 2009-03-13 07:37:12

Arch basics:
Arch Live CD does not include X. Type /arch/setup to install as stated in the beginners guide.
Arch base install does not include X.
Arch base is a base for you to build a system on.

Check the beginners guide again.

itsmeh · 2009-03-13 07:38:12

I'm guessing the words "live cd" left me a bit confused , as the only option is to install, and not actually run everything as "live"

fwojciec · 2009-03-13 07:39:50

It is a live CD environment, it just doesn't have X.

itsmeh · 2009-03-13 07:40:44

so moving forward , i try to partition as ext4 with the defaults , and get an error , see /dev/tty for details (auto prepare) this is in vmware, if i select "select packages" i get "pacman failed" see /dev/tty7 or something like that, i got the arch core install, being the bigger file i had hoped it had most packages already on the disc

Last edited by itsmeh (2009-03-13 07:43:18)

fwojciec · 2009-03-13 07:43:43

What does the error say? (you may have to use Alt-F* keys to move to the correct console screen to see it)
Also: consult this section of the Beginners Guide. The guide is an indispensable resource when installing Arch for the first time.

Last edited by fwojciec (2009-03-13 07:47:21)

itsmeh · 2009-03-13 07:56:01

found its the same problem as this guy

http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=65672

ctrl alt F7 gives a blank screen,

sorry to much work, giving up, thanks anyways

Last edited by itsmeh (2009-03-13 07:57:30)

cactus · 2009-03-13 08:28:35

Is this thread a troll?
I mean...seriously.

dyscoria · 2009-03-13 08:37:15

itsmeh wrote:

So, why can't it have a nice graphical installer (like ubuntu or most other distros) to make it far easier to install.

omg arch is the lame.

Also, see The Arch Way (3 mentions of the beginner's guide and 2 mentions of the wiki in this thread )

itsmeh · 2009-03-13 09:10:05

Nope , not a troll thread, if you enjoy arch great but personally I don't see it working for me , if it can't install "simple" in vmware , then imagine the headache of installing on a real system?

xaff · 2009-03-13 09:50:45

I think noone here has to "imagine" really

zebulon · 2009-03-13 09:53:44

itsmeh wrote:

Nope , not a troll thread, if you enjoy arch great but personally I don't see it working for me , if it can't install "simple" in vmware , then imagine the headache of installing on a real system?

No headache at all... When a distribution claims it is simple to install or use, you can have two interpretations:

- the Ubuntu... ahem, I meant Mainstream popular distro way (yes I can troll too...): the complexity is hidden from the user, most of default choices are already made for you (also the ones you may not like), software are heavily patched and this makes the life more difficult for users who want flexibility and access to all options that are available in their OS/DE/software.

- the Arch way: complexity is not hidden behind interfaces, but well organised. Configuration options are as centralised as possible, and backed up by a very clear, community driven documentation/wiki. You'll have to read the doc to understand concepts you are not familiar with (e.g. the BSD-style init that is different from SysV that is used in most other Linux distros). The advantage is that Arch does not install crap you do not want, does not patch a software you are familiar with to make it "simpler" (dude, where is this option?).

That's the definition of "simple" with Arch, and this is made very clear in the documentation and the wiki.

Now, if you want a graphical installer for Arch, you can look at Chakra (which looks gorgeous by the way): http://kdemod.ath.cx/download-iso.html#screenshots but be aware this is a separate project and outside the scope of the vanilla Arch distribution.

Last edited by zebulon (2009-03-13 10:01:16)

jt512 · 2009-03-13 10:22:16

itsmeh wrote:

sorry to much work, giving up, thanks anyways

No distro can please everybody. And if the distro I've chosen fails to please those who don't know the difference between "to" and "too," can't bother to begin sentences with a capital letter, and end sentences with a period, then I've probably picked the right distro.

Jay

test1000 · 2009-03-13 11:59:35

1. Someone have some expectations about what a "good os" is.

This involves having a graphical installation mechanism even though you only install the os once(yes, it's called Rolling Release!) and my experience with graphical installation mechanisms is that you can't see what went wrong when something goes wrong and much more frequently something does go wrong.

2. Said distro doesn't deliver on this point so he decides the whole distro is crap.

The Addendum to this is that i don't think we have a great installer, graphical or not, but it is being worked on(or maybe it's already in the newest isos, i haven't checked), the second point is that it is idiocy to judge a distro based on it's frickin installer! I guess the third point could be that it's a good thing we have such an installer so people like this don't come here and starts screaming at us for not being ubuntu...

klixon · 2009-03-13 12:41:16

temper... temper...

My favourite way to install arch is from a command line. I think a lot of archers agree with me. They are the ones that want to use arch. See if you fit into that model.
If not, and you're not interested in learning how to do it (and by learning i mean doing your own research ), arch sucks bigtime for you (and i'm not sarcastic)
That does not mean this distro sucks for everyone... It's great for the ones who want a more customised/hands-on system

Have fun learning how linux works here... or elsewhere.

Topics going nowhere, perhaps?

dannytatom · 2009-03-13 13:45:56

I haven't been here for long at all and already I'm being annoyed by the amount of users/threads like this.

rson451 · 2009-03-13 13:51:03

dannytatom wrote:

I haven't been here for long at all and already I'm being annoyed by the amount of users/threads like this.

Give it long enough, you become immune. At least this one was rather polite compared to the rest.

OP: Often installing something in VMWare is misleading. Installing on real hardware is sometimes easier.

Primoz · 2009-03-13 14:15:27

OK I come from Kubuntu (Ubuntu with KDE stapled to it) and I don't understand this guy. I guess he didn't do his "research". I knew exactly what Arch is when I installed it for the first time on my
"testbed" machine. I don't know what exactly drove him to test Arch, but I feel that Arch is really good just because of no X. As it doesn't hide the complexity of Linux.
The user-friendly distros are trying to presuade us that Linux is user-friendly, but on the end you still have to use CLI if you want to get some things done it's just no other way.
Arch is better in that way that it doesn't pretend to be user friendly in a GUI way it's user friendly in the way that it has a large wiki with everything that you need to get your computer to work.
I don't count myself among the CLI-geeks users and I still managed to install Arch and install X and Install KDEmod all from CLI with help of Wiki through Links (really good that it's in the base packages).
It really seems that this user is a troll or very uneducated. And I fear that Linux is not for this user, as it's too much work...

Kilz · 2009-03-13 15:08:51

Primoz wrote:

It really seems that this user is a troll or very uneducated. And I fear that Linux is not for this user, as it's too much work...

IMHO what Ubuntu and its derivatives are bringing into linux are users, in more ways than one. They dont care, they dont read, they dont research. They post the same question that 500 other users ask, most of the time within 10 posts of the same question. They give up if its not a shiny installer with ok/next buttons. That isnt to say all Ubuntu users are like that, but imho they exist in greater numbers there.
What they want is Windows without issues. But we know Linux != Windows. I tend to look at these posts as proof that I made the correct decision. After 6k posts helping Ubuntu "users" I gave up.

Arch Linux

#1 2009-03-13 07:23:42

Arch First Impressions

#2 2009-03-13 07:26:04

Re: Arch First Impressions

#3 2009-03-13 07:29:45

Re: Arch First Impressions

#4 2009-03-13 07:33:46

Re: Arch First Impressions

#5 2009-03-13 07:34:05

Re: Arch First Impressions

#6 2009-03-13 07:35:41

Re: Arch First Impressions

#7 2009-03-13 07:35:49

Re: Arch First Impressions

#8 2009-03-13 07:37:12

Re: Arch First Impressions

#9 2009-03-13 07:38:12

Re: Arch First Impressions

#10 2009-03-13 07:39:50

Re: Arch First Impressions

#11 2009-03-13 07:40:44

Re: Arch First Impressions

#12 2009-03-13 07:43:43

Re: Arch First Impressions

#13 2009-03-13 07:56:01

Re: Arch First Impressions

#14 2009-03-13 08:28:35

Re: Arch First Impressions

#15 2009-03-13 08:37:15

Re: Arch First Impressions

#16 2009-03-13 09:10:05

Re: Arch First Impressions

#17 2009-03-13 09:50:45

Re: Arch First Impressions

#18 2009-03-13 09:53:44

Re: Arch First Impressions

#19 2009-03-13 10:22:16

Re: Arch First Impressions

#20 2009-03-13 11:59:35

Re: Arch First Impressions

#21 2009-03-13 12:41:16

Re: Arch First Impressions

#22 2009-03-13 13:45:56

Re: Arch First Impressions

#23 2009-03-13 13:51:03

Re: Arch First Impressions

#24 2009-03-13 14:15:27

Re: Arch First Impressions

#25 2009-03-13 15:08:51

Re: Arch First Impressions

Board footer