3 ms·
I don’t think the official messaging is inconsistent, although it could be worded better. Please don’t also mistake random users to be the official source of in
by ratorx 5y ago
I don’t think the official messaging is inconsistent, although it could be worded better. Please don’t also mistake random users to be the official source of information. I am also a random user and these are my opinions.
Arch can definitely be used by beginners. The only required skill is the willingness and ability to invest time into the process. There shouldn’t be a minimum knowledge bar to try Arch. However, the willingness to RTFM and Google are undoubtedly necessary.
You have some good ideas about useful things to know during first time installation. However, the installation guide is not the place for this. The current format is a good compromise, and it is not the right place to provide more background. Instead, supplementary information should be added to existing pages/new pages and linked from the guide.
I think the problem with the current guide is it links out to too much context. It should only link to pages that are absolutely necessary to be read and any further diving should happen from the linked pages. Note: I don’t think the actual guide should have more information added, but rather that some information should be moved.
The forest-of-links approach is the one that scales and doesn’t get a bunch of outdated documentation. A beginner can and should read some of the linked pages. This is part of the time investment.
The install script is fairly new. It’s also not aimed at new users, but rather experienced ones looking to automate some of the process. The support issue you ran into is a perfect example of why forest-of-links is the better approach. The support forum thread has become out-of-date, and is now providing inconsistent information by saying that manual installation guide installation is the ONLY supported method.
- vegadw 5y agoI don't think it's fair to call him a random user. He's a regular of the forums with over 6k posts. Plus, it wasn't just this one user. On the forums, one of the admins directly made their opinion of how to handle new users clear, boiling down to let them experience trial by fire. Yes, Arch is and should be difficult. But that doesn't mean it should be made extra difficult by listing out incredibly esoteric options for each step and leaving the user to research every single one. That is ridiculous and will only get worse with time. You shouldn't have to research every weird fringe file system and a half dozen weird boot loader to find out that most people are using ext4 or btrFS and Systemd-boot or Grub. Just some pointing to good paths. It's one thing to RTFM, it's another to RTF all the Ms for everything ever, which I think you agree with by saying > It should only link to pages that are absolutely necessary to be read and any further diving should happen from the linked pages I know when I first installed arch in 2014 I used the beginner's guide, which was much easier to follow. And, yeah, I did have at least some experience with Ubuntu before that, but not very much. I'd largely disliked Linux up to that point because installing software was a major PITA (adding PPAs is still a PITA, and now we have the mess of Snap, Flatpack, AppImages, etc. on top of it) and after getting Arch actually working I found a system that made things convenient to the point of justifying the work, plus it let me customize the heck out of my system (i3wm, RT kernel for making music, etc.)