EndeavourOS Is Hoping To Be The Successor To Antergos - Convenient To Use Arch Linux

[phoronix]

Phoronix: EndeavourOS Is Hoping To Be The Successor To Antergos - Convenient To Use Arch Linux

Details are light up to this point but in fifteen days EndeavourOS will be announced as a new Arch-based Linux distribution aiming to continue where Antergos Linux left off...

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=EndeavourOS-Announcement

[edoantonioco]

so all the custom software written for artengos now goes to waste

[89c51]

The only thing Arch needs is an easy to use point and click installer.

Other than the installation which is a bit of a drag there is nothing inconvenient about arch. TBH i honestly cant understand how they manage to have all the latest stuff and work with no issues.

[boxie]

The only thing Arch needs is an easy to use point and click installer.

the one time I thought "maybe I'll see what this arch stuff is about" I booted the install disk, got dropped to a cli and thought WTF is this shit? and proceeded to delete the VM.

I don't want to work all that hard to get my OS installed. I really don't. We have not needed to do that for nearly 20 years now.

get your shit together arch

[euler271]

(...) get your shit together arch

or maybe, just dont use it. Arch has all its *intended* shit together.

[zanny]

the one time I thought "maybe I'll see what this arch stuff is about" I booted the install disk, got dropped to a cli and thought WTF is this shit? and proceeded to delete the VM.

I don't want to work all that hard to get my OS installed. I really don't. We have not needed to do that for nearly 20 years now.

get your shit together arch

The whole point of Arch is to not do things behind your back, an installer that does all the setup for you is antithetical to that.

In practice installing Arch is just setting up the partition and pacstrapping it. Its the same steps an installer like Calamares does except you run a CLI command or two for each step rather than press a next button.

The installation process, despite being straightforward, is a fantastic barrier to entry to keep those who would otherwise inundate the bug tracker / forums with easily solved issues via Google or the wiki on other distros.

[boxie]

The whole point of Arch is to not do things behind your back, an installer that does all the setup for you is antithetical to that.

In practice installing Arch is just setting up the partition and pacstrapping it. Its the same steps an installer like Calamares does except you run a CLI command or two for each step rather than press a next button.

The installation process, despite being straightforward, is a fantastic barrier to entry to keep those who would otherwise inundate the bug tracker / forums with easily solved issues via Google or the wiki on other distros.

Right, not doing things behind your back. what exactly do you think an installer would do that is "behind your back"? If Calemares can do these things for you, why not let it?

It's a convenience method. Not a spy.

and to be fair your second point about keeping out the riffraff is entirely en excuse. Something you see as a benefit that is actually not.

[boxie]

or maybe, just dont use it. Arch has all its *intended* shit together.

oh, I am not. I too can choose not to install a windscreen on a car. It's still a car, right?

[halo9en]

The installation process, despite being straightforward, is a fantastic barrier to entry to keep those who would otherwise inundate the bug tracker / forums with easily solved issues via Google or the wiki on other distros.

Arch forum rules, page 1: "These boards are for the support of Arch Linux, and Arch ONLY" = "use a search engine or post on your distro's forums". Solved. I don't see why an installer is a bad thing, if it lets an Arch "veteran" install Arch on 10 machines quickly while drinking a coke.

[zanny]

I don't see why an installer is a bad thing, if it lets an Arch "veteran" install Arch on 10 machines quickly while drinking a coke.

For Arch veterans, Archiso exists and is tooled to let you functionally clone systems as boot ISOs. I have in the past used this utility to copy my Arch installs between computers in a much simpler way than booting from a generic image and reconfiguring everything by hand.

Installers aren't "bad" things. Neither is not having one. They are design choices. Many distros around Arch adopted installers because Arch didn't, and they give you options to use pacman et al without having to do the install from CLI. Some people want the convenience of pressing next a bunch of times to have a preconfigured maintainer "best" set of defaults. Others want to set their own defaults.

Arch has never been about market share. Its been about being an operating system that gets out of the face of someone who knows how to use it. A lot of that - the positive signal / noise in the forum, the quality of the wiki, etc - come from how well the lack of an automatic installer keeps a lot of people with the mindset of "if it doesn't do exactly what I want it to do its broken and someone else should fix it to work the way I want" out. That mindset is found everywhere, and is undesirably pervasive in at least American society, and its one of the best qualities of the Arch ecosystem IMO to have what is effectively a trivial set of command line tools to use as a means to avoid being flooded with that personality type.

Theres a reason why you don't go on the Ubuntu forums or use the Ubuntu wiki much.