• hottari@lemmy.ml
    5·
    11 months ago

    No big difference between those two methods of install. You get the real medal when a random upgrade breaks some software and you are able to track down the issue and corresponding solution(s).

  • dream_weasel@sh.itjust.works
    5·
    11 months ago

    “from scratch”

    It’s like a page worth of instructions you can follow verbatim excluding bootloader and network. If you watch one video of someone doing it to fill those gaps there is nothing to it.

    Source: I watched Kai Hendry speed install arch, bookmarked the video and all my machines are now arch “from scratch” in 10 minutes or less of actual keyboard time.

    • KubeRoot@discuss.tchncs.de
      1·
      11 months ago

      I think calling it “a page worth” is understating it somewhat, especially if you want a full install to actually use stuff. In reality, when installing at first, you’ll be finding stuff you missed for a while, like hardware video decoding.

      Also, are you referring to just the direct instructions for one choice? Because to me, the point of installing manually is educating yourself on the choices, choosing one that suits you, and understanding what you’re doing to set it up. Of course, when you’re doing subsequent installs, you already know that stuff - but at that point you might just want to write an install script instead of running them manually.

      • dream_weasel@sh.itjust.works
        1·
        11 months ago

        I think it depends what you want out of it.

        The arch install from the ISO is a layered process. You can always add more, but a bootable install is not much over a page away. I do like to pick what’s best for me, but that’s not a prerequisite for first install. Do it, take notes, refine, and repeat.

        I don’t have an installer or anything, but I have pretty comprehensive notes of what I like (bootctl vs grub, network-manager vs systemd-networkd and friends, and so on). But to have a system that boots and optionally has a desktop environment of your choosing is not exactly a Rubik’s cube of difficulty.

    • Sanyanov@lemmy.world
      0·
      11 months ago

      Mental Outlaw also has the great guide explaining the install step-by-step in a great detail

    • Victor@lemmy.world
      1·
      11 months ago

      Can confirm. Install once and it lives forever until the hardware dies or is replaced.

  • Secret300@sh.itjust.works
    2·
    10 months ago

    I love arch but I actually haven’t used it since before they added the arch install. I can’t imagine how much easier it is cause it’s still the terminal. The “manual” install was easy as hell

    • YAMAPIKARIYA@lemmyfi.comOP
      2·
      10 months ago

      It’s much easier. Just make some choices and it installs. Honestly can’t call it the terminal if it lets me choose options with arrow keys.

  • NominatedNemesis@reddthat.com
    1·
    11 months ago

    Endeavour Os was the best thing I ever used. Easy to install, out of box is minimal but sufficient. I traded my Linux Mint to be able to customize my workflow, look and feel.

  • MalReynolds@slrpnk.netEnglish
    0·
    11 months ago

    NixOS is the new Arch… (cat, meet pigeons) Unfortunately It doesn’t have as much basic training as Arch did (which archinstall obviates, not that I think this is a bad thing, it’s time is here), which did so much to improve community. Unfortunately NixOS’s doco is woeful, while ArchWiki is gold standard.

    I say this as an ex Arch type who moved to Fedora, now ublue-kinoite, waiting for Nix to mature enough to daily (although I do have a T440p with 3 boot drives not doing much, hmm)…

    • Shareni@programming.dev
      1·
      11 months ago

      NixOS is the new Arch…

      Yeah nah, arch has an actual use case for normal users - it’s just the same old Linux with the most recent packages.

      Nix and guix simply don’t work as distros for regular people. They’re made for scientific and corporate applications. They add a huge amount of complexity in order to solve problems you don’t have.

      Nixos is like rust: hyped into the stratosphere by people who don’t use it

      I say this as an ex Arch type who moved to Fedora, now ublue-kinoite, waiting for Nix to mature enough to daily

      I’m running guix in fedora as a PM. You get most of the benefits, and can still use other PM’s like npm without crying for a week first. Although imo guix works better in that scenario since you can just “guix install X” and then use X like any other binary.