Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 31 to 40 of 40

Thread: Manjaro: A Convenient Way To Play With Arch Linux

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    606

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ericg View Post
    You must've picked the Net install iso, or selected the option in the ncurses install that the packages should be downloaded over the net. The Arch Devs have ALWAYS (Since 2010 when I found Linux and Arch) had an iso available that had the base set of necessary packages on disc because for a long time wifi adapters were very hit or miss under linux.
    No, I am fairly certain that there is no base ISO available for download. The largest ISO available on the download page is the release CD that is only 506MB and comes with nothing more than the kernel and some vital packages. In fact, the Arch Wiki even says this:

    A single image is provided which can be booted into an i686 and x86_64 live system to install Arch Linux over the network (emphasis mine). Media containing the [core] repository are no longer provided.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Pennsylvania, United States
    Posts
    1,939

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonadow View Post
    No, I am fairly certain that there is no base ISO available for download. The largest ISO available on the download page is the release CD that is only 506MB and comes with nothing more than the kernel and some vital packages. In fact, the Arch Wiki even says this:

    That's a fairly new change then... because I've got cd's and dvd's laying around the house of Arch from just last year that are marked as Core vs Net install. I wonder when the switch happened.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    380

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ericg View Post
    That's a fairly new change then... because I've got cd's and dvd's laying around the house of Arch from just last year that are marked as Core vs Net install. I wonder when the switch happened.
    Probably because it was so often a messy fist update if the core package was from before some architectural change. When you used the net install you always got a updated system and didn't need to convert it to some file system change which needed intervention in the first package update. With the net install you know, you at least started with a working system. I suppose this is a good idea, especially if it your fist installation of Arch

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    1

    Default

    Contrary to common belief, Arch Linux DOES NOT HAVE to be installed from the official ISO. Arch can be installed from pretty EVERYWHERE, be it any distro already installed on the computer, an Ubuntu or Fedora LiveCD, or even a running Linux machine over the network (detailed guide here). You can also try ArchBoot or even create your own custom ISO. In all cases, you'll end up with a pure Arch Linux installation, no tricks.

    In fact, installing Arch from an Ubuntu LiveCD is even easier because you have graphical tools available that can configure your network (networkmanager), partition hard drives (gparted) and edit config files (gedit). As a bonus, you can research any information you need at installation time using Firefox.

    Ironically, Arch can be installed from an Ubuntu CD faster than Ubuntu itself.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    606

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Akka View Post
    Probably because it was so often a messy fist update if the core package was from before some architectural change. When you used the net install you always got a updated system and didn't need to convert it to some file system change which needed intervention in the first package update. With the net install you know, you at least started with a working system. I suppose this is a good idea, especially if it your fist installation of Arch
    And for those who cannot get a network connection prior to starting up the installation process due to various reasons, Arch is essentially useless. There still remains a need to provide some form of offline installation capacity for such machines since they do exist (my computer is one of them).

    Distros like Manjaro allows such affected users to install and experience Arch in some form without having to cry over their non-functional network connection at the installer stage.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    380

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonadow View Post
    And for those who cannot get a network connection prior to starting up the installation process due to various reasons, Arch is essentially useless. There still remains a need to provide some form of offline installation capacity for such machines since they do exist (my computer is one of them).

    Distros like Manjaro allows such affected users to install and experience Arch in some form without having to cry over their non-functional network connection at the installer stage.
    Why cant you get network? Arch is kinda worthless on computer without network. If it is software you need to get the network up place them on a usb or something.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    840

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Akka View Post
    Why cant you get network? Arch is kinda worthless on computer without network. If it is software you need to get the network up place them on a usb or something.
    If you go back and read his original post, you'll see that in fact, he did get around his networking troubles, but then ran into a package management/dependency issue.... So I'm not sure why he is still whining about the networking issue, when in reality a). he got it working and b). if using Archlinux, having a network connection is a requirement (for installation). Barring that, you may be able to download the repos (or what you need) onto a USBstick to use during installation, possibly. (i've never explored that possibility before). I've installed Archlinux a handful of times (both old and new method), getting networking up has never been an issue. (not wifi, nor eth0) Plus, as others have pointed out - he could have used a live-cd to avoid that and potentially make life easier for himself, if he wanted to (or had known about that).

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonadow View Post
    You'd think that all would go well after 1 hour of crying and coaxing my WiFi to work for installation, but immediately after that when running pacman to pull in all the standard packages (drivers, DEs, software applications, etc etc) as instructed by the newbie guide, everything just went belly up when pacman claimed to be unable to meet some dependencies for the i915 driver package and could not proceed with installation, leaving me with a system that had essentially garbage on it. Not fun at all. Went back to Fedora and had a working installation up in an hour.
    see, it was a dependency problem (which imho was probably 'easily' fixed too) that left him with "a system that essentially had garbage on it"... or rather Sonadow left his system in a garbage state by not fixing, what was probably a very minor issue to fix. ~ that may sound harsh, but it's not. Archlinux is NOT the kind of distro that does hand-holding -> if you need to be coddled and can't fix problems, and/or are not motivated to work through them / get help through the proper channels and/or aren't willing to learn how to deal with problems, as they arise ~ then imo, you have no business using Archlinux, since it is not that kind of distro.

    Instead, use a distro that takes care of everything for you. ~ because if you can't solve minor issues on your own, you're probably not going to be able to maintain an Archlinux install very well, anyway.

    but on topic:

    Manjaro looks okay, at first glance. but i do think they handled the pacman 4.1 issue, rather poorly and didn't even do basic research on tools they were using in their distro. (that's just embarrassing, if you ask me and surely doesn't gain any trust or confidence in their ability to manage a distro). myself, I probably wouldn't use Manjaro (actually not 'probably' - i wouldn't), but that is because i am already quite happy with Arch. That being said, if it allows the odd person to test out Archlinux - that's cool - as long as they don't expect Archlinux is going to hold their hand the same way ~ and as long as they don't flood Archlinux forums trying to get help with problems.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ifaigios View Post
    Contrary to common belief, Arch Linux DOES NOT HAVE to be installed from the official ISO. Arch can be installed from pretty EVERYWHERE, be it any distro already installed on the computer, an Ubuntu or Fedora LiveCD, or even a running Linux machine over the network (detailed guide here). You can also try ArchBoot or even create your own custom ISO. In all cases, you'll end up with a pure Arch Linux installation, no tricks.

    In fact, installing Arch from an Ubuntu LiveCD is even easier because you have graphical tools available that can configure your network (networkmanager), partition hard drives (gparted) and edit config files (gedit). As a bonus, you can research any information you need at installation time using Firefox.

    Ironically, Arch can be installed from an Ubuntu CD faster than Ubuntu itself.
    That I did not know, I think I shall give it a try. What lures me to Arch from Lubuntu is the prospect of greater speed, newer packages and lower resource usage.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    275

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BW~Merlin View Post
    That I did not know, I think I shall give it a try. What lures me to Arch from Lubuntu is the prospect of greater speed, newer packages and lower resource usage.
    Newer packages for sure. Lower resource usage is a natural consequence of it being a minimalistic approach. I'm not sure about performance, though. While performance gains should come about as a side-effect of having a leaner and meaner system, you lose out on the performance tuning done by a big development effort like the kind that's thrown at Ubuntu.

    I think that really it's a question of how hands-on you want to be with your system. If you want to and intend to tinker, not just in the initial set-up, but repeatedly, then you'll probably get better mileage using a distro that's designed with people like you in mind. The opposite is the case if you are not a tinkerer by nature.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Rural Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    1,058

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Serge View Post
    I think that really it's a question of how hands-on you want to be with your system. If you want to and intend to tinker, not just in the initial set-up, but repeatedly, then you'll probably get better mileage using a distro that's designed with people like you in mind. The opposite is the case if you are not a tinkerer by nature.
    Seconded.

    Personally, the main thing that attracted me to Arch is the AUR, and that is still the main reason I am using it on my computer. For every other machine I deal with I still lean heavily to Fedora or CentOS though.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •