3 ms·
Honestly, having used both the old installer and the new procedure dozens of times each, I really do prefer the wiki page. It's just a lot more flexible and com
by dhruvmittal 13y ago
Honestly, having used both the old installer and the new procedure dozens of times each, I really do prefer the wiki page. It's just a lot more flexible and comfortable to a shell user. It also exposes a number of config files that as an arch user, you should be aware of. In that way, I find it to conform to the "Arch Way[1]" than the system it replaced.
Not to say that it doesn't have it's downsides, like scaring off new users.
[1]: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/The_Arch_Way https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/The_Arch_Way
- groovy2shoes 13y agoI think it would be fine if they gave a little guidance on the disc itself. Maybe little notes above the prompt that tell you what you should do next in the installation process, or even just a notice that says "see /usr/doc/INSTALL for instructions". The first time I attempted to install Arch after the installer was dropped, I had no idea what to do and had to find another computer to bring the wiki up. Some people might not have a spare computer to bring the instructions up, and they might not have a printer either.
- jethro_tell 13y agoIf you 'ls' in the first directory you are dropped into you will see INSTALL.txt. You can use cat, less. more, vim or nano to read the document. You can use ALT+f2 to switch to a second pty and install away.
- groovy2shoes 13y agoGood to know! I still hold that it would be helpful if there was some indication that the file was there. Neither the Installation Guide nor the download page mention it at all.