3 ms·

OP here. One goal: Make Arch's documentation for installation better so that more people trying Linux (if they pick Arch first) have a better experience. It see

by vegadw 5y ago

OP here. One goal: Make Arch's documentation for installation better so that more people trying Linux (if they pick Arch first) have a better experience. It seems that to do this, the entire project needs to have a cultural shift in the attitude towards newcomers.

chrsig 5y ago
So what are you hoping to gain by making the HN folk aware of your goal?
- ranguna 5y ago
  People that pick arch first, should probably pick manjaro first if they are not comfortable with arch or if they don't read the wiki articles thoroughly. Imo arch is not supposed to be veterans only (see gentoo or lfs), but it's also not supposed to be for people that say pop OS is hard. The Linux disto scene is open for a reason, if you don't like one disto, pick another one. I actually like the structure of the wiki, including the installation guide. The first time I installed arch on my system, I almost broke it, and that was horrifying at the same time as it was an incredible learning experience. The wiki is actually built in a way that forces people to pay attention to what you are reading vs skimming through the text (that people with incredibly short attention span are doing more and more). So, should we make the arch installation guide better? > Immediately assumes you have a system with gpg installed, or know how to install it and use it, but doesn't mention torrents will verify this for you (I think?) So here you are saying that there should be a note about torrent signature verification? > lists USB, Disc, or PXE as options, doesn't indicate that USB is typical "typical" is relative in time, so is "common", and I don't think an impartial installation guide should include this. > doesn't explain why UEFI might be prefered / better if on newer hardware/living along side Windows This is an installation guide, so as not to make the guide bigger than it is and with more tangents. If one needs more info on uefi or legacy, one should search about it and learn from dedicated sources. > Sort of implies `ip link` enables the network interface I'm sorry, it does not: > Ensure your network interface is listed and enabled A few lines down: > Connect to the network: (...) Wi-Fi—authenticate to the wireless network using iwcl. > doesn't include any information about making Arch live along side other OS's Again, this is an installation guide for installing arch on a machine. If people want to install arch on a machine with another OS, then look on the first line: > For alternative means of installation, see Category:Installation process (https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Category:Installation_process https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Category:Installation_proce...). Which includes a link to the following article: https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Dual_boot_with_Windows https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Dual_boot_with_Windows > Also doesn't recommend users do a backup first, if they're using a disk with data on it Agree, this should probably be added in. > it's probably worth saying systemd-boot and grub are the most common two options Echoing my points above: > "typical" is relative in time, so is "common" and I don't think an impartial installation guide should include this. > If one needs more info (...), one should search about it and learn from dedicated sources. - > doesn't clarify that still aren't enough to have a graphical environment This is going to sound harsh but, imo a graphical environment is not an essential package. > On that note, the https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Dual_boot_with_Windows https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Dual_boot_with_Windows page isn't even linked in the installation guide. It is, just not directly. You'll have to go to the link in the first line, which includes way more different installation variants other than windows or mac. Imo, arch should not cater for mac, or Windows or any other user. The links are there, you just need to read and click them. For anything arch, you really need to sit down and read the articles carefully, no skimming allowed. Will it take hours or days to fully install arch for the first time if you have to sit down and read carefully? Probably yes, but you'll leave knowing a lot more than you knew when you started.
  - ranguna 5y ago
    Looks like I'm past the editing grace period, so I'll add this "edit" as a reply: > doesn't clarify that still aren't enough to have a graphical environment By reading the installation guide thoroughly, you'll actually see this on the post installation section: > See General recommendations for system management directions and post-installation tutorials Where "general recommendations" is an article containing a section for graphical user environments (https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/General_recommendations#Graphical_user_interface https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/General_recommendations#Gra...).
nix23 5y ago
Why no work on the official wiki itself, and not create another of the 1000's "probably" outdated guides? Just asking.
rakoo 5y ago
Why should it be easier for first timers to use Arch ? It does require to know a lot, so if those people are going to pick Arch first they will be spending hours and hours reading all the needed resources. And no, this is not optional: to use Arch, you're supposed to know how all the parts work. If not, many other distributions will be perfect for you.
throwawayninja 5y ago
Small question: what, in your opinion, is the definition of "better experience"? On one hand you can hide the hardware from users and make a limited form of success simple and easy (see windows + mac). On the other extreme you can present them with a large wiki of well-documented behaviors, and they will have to select the behaviors they want in their system; at times sacrificing one for another because of fundamental incompatibilities, nonexistent interfaces, or some hardware differences. Down one path hurts new users abilities to learn about reality, down the other path hurts users who are disgusted by reality. I think the choice of community boils down to a choice of goal, the definition of "better experience", and Arch pretty strongly does not take any stances there. You're on your own to make up a goal and navigate to it.
- vegadw 5y ago
  As I point out in the guide, just some guidance as to what paths are well worn. Presenting people with a list of every possible boot loader and file system, leaving them to research every option, isn't great. On top of that, the current guide doesn't even warn users to do a backup before doing Patitioning/FS stuff. I'm not saying to make a bunch of decisions for the user, I'm saying we should steer them to common answers and let them look up the more esoteric stuff with time.

by vegadw 5y ago

chrsig 5y ago

So what are you hoping to gain by making the HN folk aware of your goal?

ranguna 5y ago
People that pick arch first, should probably pick manjaro first if they are not comfortable with arch or if they don't read the wiki articles thoroughly. Imo arch is not supposed to be veterans only (see gentoo or lfs), but it's also not supposed to be for people that say pop OS is hard. The Linux disto scene is open for a reason, if you don't like one disto, pick another one. I actually like the structure of the wiki, including the installation guide. The first time I installed arch on my system, I almost broke it, and that was horrifying at the same time as it was an incredible learning experience. The wiki is actually built in a way that forces people to pay attention to what you are reading vs skimming through the text (that people with incredibly short attention span are doing more and more). So, should we make the arch installation guide better? > Immediately assumes you have a system with gpg installed, or know how to install it and use it, but doesn't mention torrents will verify this for you (I think?) So here you are saying that there should be a note about torrent signature verification? > lists USB, Disc, or PXE as options, doesn't indicate that USB is typical "typical" is relative in time, so is "common", and I don't think an impartial installation guide should include this. > doesn't explain why UEFI might be prefered / better if on newer hardware/living along side Windows This is an installation guide, so as not to make the guide bigger than it is and with more tangents. If one needs more info on uefi or legacy, one should search about it and learn from dedicated sources. > Sort of implies `ip link` enables the network interface I'm sorry, it does not: > Ensure your network interface is listed and enabled A few lines down: > Connect to the network: (...) Wi-Fi—authenticate to the wireless network using iwcl. > doesn't include any information about making Arch live along side other OS's Again, this is an installation guide for installing arch on a machine. If people want to install arch on a machine with another OS, then look on the first line: > For alternative means of installation, see Category:Installation process (https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Category:Installation_process https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Category:Installation_proce...). Which includes a link to the following article: https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Dual_boot_with_Windows https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Dual_boot_with_Windows > Also doesn't recommend users do a backup first, if they're using a disk with data on it Agree, this should probably be added in. > it's probably worth saying systemd-boot and grub are the most common two options Echoing my points above: > "typical" is relative in time, so is "common" and I don't think an impartial installation guide should include this. > If one needs more info (...), one should search about it and learn from dedicated sources. - > doesn't clarify that still aren't enough to have a graphical environment This is going to sound harsh but, imo a graphical environment is not an essential package. > On that note, the https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Dual_boot_with_Windows https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Dual_boot_with_Windows page isn't even linked in the installation guide. It is, just not directly. You'll have to go to the link in the first line, which includes way more different installation variants other than windows or mac. Imo, arch should not cater for mac, or Windows or any other user. The links are there, you just need to read and click them. For anything arch, you really need to sit down and read the articles carefully, no skimming allowed. Will it take hours or days to fully install arch for the first time if you have to sit down and read carefully? Probably yes, but you'll leave knowing a lot more than you knew when you started.
- ranguna 5y ago
  Looks like I'm past the editing grace period, so I'll add this "edit" as a reply: > doesn't clarify that still aren't enough to have a graphical environment By reading the installation guide thoroughly, you'll actually see this on the post installation section: > See General recommendations for system management directions and post-installation tutorials Where "general recommendations" is an article containing a section for graphical user environments (https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/General_recommendations#Graphical_user_interface https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/General_recommendations#Gra...).

nix23 5y ago

Why no work on the official wiki itself, and not create another of the 1000's "probably" outdated guides? Just asking.

rakoo 5y ago

Why should it be easier for first timers to use Arch ? It does require to know a lot, so if those people are going to pick Arch first they will be spending hours and hours reading all the needed resources. And no, this is not optional: to use Arch, you're supposed to know how all the parts work. If not, many other distributions will be perfect for you.

throwawayninja 5y ago

Small question: what, in your opinion, is the definition of "better experience"? On one hand you can hide the hardware from users and make a limited form of success simple and easy (see windows + mac). On the other extreme you can present them with a large wiki of well-documented behaviors, and they will have to select the behaviors they want in their system; at times sacrificing one for another because of fundamental incompatibilities, nonexistent interfaces, or some hardware differences. Down one path hurts new users abilities to learn about reality, down the other path hurts users who are disgusted by reality. I think the choice of community boils down to a choice of goal, the definition of "better experience", and Arch pretty strongly does not take any stances there. You're on your own to make up a goal and navigate to it.

vegadw 5y ago
As I point out in the guide, just some guidance as to what paths are well worn. Presenting people with a list of every possible boot loader and file system, leaving them to research every option, isn't great. On top of that, the current guide doesn't even warn users to do a backup before doing Patitioning/FS stuff. I'm not saying to make a bunch of decisions for the user, I'm saying we should steer them to common answers and let them look up the more esoteric stuff with time.