3 ms·

In cases where people simply have to follow instructions, I find the fear of the command line to be disappointing. It is far easier to provide support and that

by II2II 5y ago

In cases where people simply have to follow instructions, I find the fear of the command line to be disappointing. It is far easier to provide support and that support is far less failure prone simply because you can state exactly what has to be done, rather than describe how to navigate a user interface while hoping that the other person interprets visual cues in the same way. That being said, there is a deeper problem with the Arch installation process: the user needs to know exactly what they want. I can race through an Arch installation and end up with my desired configuration far faster than I could in any other operating system. Much of that has to do with the ability to dump a list of package names into pacstrap and copying over a bunch of configuration files. There is no fumbling around with a GUI. Yet those who are new to Arch (or, worse, new to Linux) don't have the benefit of that experience. The process is daunting.

yissp 5y ago
I don't know, I've installed installed arch many times and I still occasionally will forget some step or make a typo or something. Then I have to boot the installation image again, remount everything, fix the issue... it's annoying. GUI installers don't really have this problem.
- johnisgood 5y ago
  Well, GUI installers are typically severely limited.
awill 5y ago
I've used Arch for 12 years. But every time I reinstall, it takes me a long, long time to get everything working perfectly. It's painful, and requires a second machine to have the documentation handy. The documentation is good in the sense that it is thorough, but Arch refuses to have a preferred method of install. It refuses to have an opinion. Rather than a sane default, the installation guide says "Install a bootloader. Click here for a list of 8 bootloaders" "Click here to see 12 different partition managers" etc.. I feel I have to be an expert in every part of the system (Even things I'll never, ever touch again). It would be much better if the install guide chose the default and said "here's a link for other options if you prefer". Once the system is set up, I mostly just run pacup every day, with very few issues. But the install process seems deliberately complicated, and serves as gatekeeping.

by II2II 5y ago

yissp 5y ago

I don't know, I've installed installed arch many times and I still occasionally will forget some step or make a typo or something. Then I have to boot the installation image again, remount everything, fix the issue... it's annoying. GUI installers don't really have this problem.

johnisgood 5y ago
Well, GUI installers are typically severely limited.

awill 5y ago

I've used Arch for 12 years. But every time I reinstall, it takes me a long, long time to get everything working perfectly. It's painful, and requires a second machine to have the documentation handy. The documentation is good in the sense that it is thorough, but Arch refuses to have a preferred method of install. It refuses to have an opinion. Rather than a sane default, the installation guide says "Install a bootloader. Click here for a list of 8 bootloaders" "Click here to see 12 different partition managers" etc.. I feel I have to be an expert in every part of the system (Even things I'll never, ever touch again). It would be much better if the install guide chose the default and said "here's a link for other options if you prefer". Once the system is set up, I mostly just run pacup every day, with very few issues. But the install process seems deliberately complicated, and serves as gatekeeping.