Life was made so easy after the archinstall option, I don't care if people say that you are not a real arch user if you use it. I really don't care, I just want to install it and get on with my life
Agreed. The whole idea of "real Arch user" is stupid in the first place. Installing SLS or Slackware back in the early days would make many of those that act that way cry. They wouldn't have had the great Wiki, hell there was barely an internet at all. BBS was the main resource.
@@alecmackintosh2734 if a person has the time, why not? Indeed it is cool to start from scratch and then have your system fully functional. But after a couple of times, you might as well use archinstall 😹
I've installed Gentoo many times. Spent hours configuring stuff. Installed Arch and Slackware by hand. Slackware before package managers. Manually resolved dependencies. Now I'm not the young woman with no responsibilities anymore and just want to have a working computer so I can get on with my life. Thank you for the video.
Feels like we've come full-circle with Arch's installation. Back in 2010 when I first used it, there was an ncurses installer, and getting set up was pretty easy. Then they removed it a couple years later for whatever reason, and now the easy install option is back. Feels so weird how the installer was gone for the longest time.
I used to be a diehard Debian user but now switched to Arch. Happier with Arch. It just runs quicker and everything works (nvidia drivers) without going in circles. Running as a daily on a TR Pro.
A major gotcha not mentioned in this video is that the newer archinstall script (introduced with the August built iso and newer) it searches for mirrors instead of just generically setting the mirrors for your region based on your choice. The result of this is as you see in the video a very slow testing of the mirrors. But whats worse is that it doesn't test them thoroughly enough and even with parallel downloads enabled the installation will be dog slow. You gotta skip that part and do the mirror checking yourself with a reflector --latest 50 --sort rate --save /etc/pacman.d/mirrorlist command. You do this alongside setting the parallel download count in pacman.conf before starting archinstall and then don't mess with the mirrors option inside the installer itself. Also archinstall is just a package you can install to install arch on basically any storage device you want.
This right here is a classic example of why Windows and MACOS is popular, or why people tend to choose easy distros. Here is a long time linux user, who has a long history of using Arch, though hasn't in a year or so. Tries to install arch via the "Easy way" and still had errors. Again, in the real world, Most everyone simply don't have the time to be battling an OS, they don't have the time to "maintenance" arch. For example, I can't go about study or a board exam, or for a big dissertation, or for a big project at work, and at the same time have time to be babying my computer installation. God bless those who have that time, but most people simply don't.
@@Powerincarnate. To understand how to install an OS is a life's prerequisite. You will not learn mathematics just when need it. And about the installation, Arch is thinked to be manual, to personalize... If you want something someone did for you AND something stable you use something Debian based for example. So.... About the time, you shouldnt reinstall your OS when you are busy, nor even a manual one... But you may have an snapshot. And to dont have to maintain, you use a stable lts distribution... I thing you are right about what you said, but, there is some prerequisites for life that would make everything easier.
No, you install system like CachyOS where everything just works out of the box without unnecesary bloat. Arch really is for people with too much free time.
Arch Linux is not for those that doesn't want to sacrifice their time. I don't think I'm allowed say this, you are just keep putting the blame to Arch Linux because its not suitable distro for you. Just treat Arch Linux as a hobby distro if you love tinkering with something.
I think showing your failure and the steps going through to correct is, is invaluable. Its much more useful than if you had chosen the Desktop install in the beginning, which wouldn't teach nearly as this video now.
It depends on the user. If they are not a technical user or someone who is comfortable on the terminal, then I would never recommend it as their first foray into Linux. Even if they are somewhat technical, it still is often better as a second distro or a VM to learn more about Linux. I am an old school Linux user/dev starting back in the Softlanding days. Arch was never hard for me. We didn't have the great Arch Wiki or anything close to that back in the day. That said, Arch is not a distro I choose to use. It really does not do anything for me, I cannot do on any other distro. Now think of it from a fresh new user from Windows, who barely knows the DOS prompt. The quickest way to keep them on Windows is have them install Linux from a command prompt, Archinstall or not. I do very much recommend they try Arch at some point, as it is a great way to learn things that are done for you by other distros, but only if they want to learn. The great thing about modern Linux, if you don't need to learn the underbelly of it, then you don't have too.
As an old Arch user, I think using Arch doesn't add much value to my workflow. I now moved to debian stable for my base distro and extensively use flatpak and nix package manager to get new stuff (add to that distro-box). It has drastically changed my computer usage and I have no headache on whatever distro I'm using.
@@danielspalma You can set up an Arch instance using a distro-box, which allows you to get AUR packages without affecting system libraries. However, I usually build my own packages if I can't find them with the other mentioned methods (which rarely happen)."
nobody cares you went from a distro that provides latest packages to a distro which doesn't provide latest package and have to use band aid hackjobs like flatpak and 3rd party n*x to get latest packages. Weird.
CachyOS is a piece of impressive work. As an old hardware owner (Xeon plus RTX 4060) I distro hop a lot searching for the best performance possible. So far, CachyOS made a miracle here. Wayland, VRR, everything works well and very fast. No issues so far. The closest was Fedora 40. But CachyOS is absolutely amazing.
@@cameronbosch1213EndeavourOS (Gnome) was terrible on my machine, unfortunately. No Wayland, VRR or even Bluetooth worked. Then moved to CachyOS and everything works flawlessly.
Nice video! Still don't understand why people say that maintenance is hard on Arch. I just run pacman - Syu every so often and that's been working without problem for about 2 years for me. Maybe there was a time when it broke more and the reputation stuck
@@sebnargeurbrok1374 been on arch for over two years, and a few times a year updates break stuff for me. audio, login manager, plasma (latest issues from this year) If I'd need a distro that never breaks I would switch. but I have time to repair each time
I have used Arch for a year almost and stopped somewhere around june due to constant system freezes, I wanted to play some Hunt Showdown with friends but it really didnt want to let me, it always crashed for some reazon. It was stable for all this time until then, I assume that some update broke something but because it was a deep system freeze there was no way for me to find out what it was so I just gave up and gave Thumbleweed a chance. I'm still amazed how nice and reliable this distro is.
I'm pretty OK with Arch being easier to install than it ever has been... It undermines the "I use Arch btw" bs which itself undermines how good Arch actually is. I'd love for there to be more room for Arch to get that recognition that it deserves.
I just download the iso and ran the archinstall TWICE. No where does it offer the option of installing a DE! Must have changed in the last few days ...
I switched to Arch just a few days ago. Did not read the any instructions. Just used the Arch install-script and installed a KDE desktop. And it runs. It was not very difficult. But I am using Linux for a long time. Just never tried Arch. Although I have used Garuda Linux and that did crash on me. Hopes this one runs much longer.
Arch Install via Script is pretty good, it make my life so much easier, and the only reason why I didn't use arch Linux was the process of installing the OS, I like command line, I love it, but installing the OS is a pain and I just don't want to use it, There were other projects, but they were not great. So I tied arch install, I loved it, simple, minimal OS just the way, I like it, it's perfect and makes my life easy, It's giving you the choice of how you can install your OS, and I like automation. So in the book, the script has changed a lot, and I love it.
The first time i installed Arch as a new user, but someone who had some experience with linux. I booted up the ISO , thought it was broken and installed something with a GUI. I later came back to it and watched a guide on how to install it. I like arch for a few reasons. But i'm still not experienced enough to know all the packages i need. Simple things like trying to get 7zip and trying to get basic themes working how i want. Maybe it was the Desktop Environment i chose at the time. I still run arch on my laptop , but its Manjao. That way i can still play with arch , but they did all the crap i didnt know how to do during the install.
I would never ever recommend Arch to new users! Not because it's hard to install, but as you said, it's hard to maintain. Especially if you update every day, then there's a broken package and new users have no idea what to do about it and blame linux as a whole. Definitely not! For new users Ubuntu and its derivatives or Fedora and its derivatives!
The ArchLinux community are some of the most hardcore mofos out-there, no wonder that they do not want others to use the script. Archinstall is meant for experienced ArchLinux users who have already installed the OS at least a dozen of times :)
I think the reason parallel downloading isn't on by default, is that not everyone has fast enough internet to really make that any faster, or at least fast enough to justify it being on. anything below a certain speed and it'll just slow down the install rather than speed it up.
I honestly hate that thumbnail "Arch is still easy", it has a negative meaning to it, like Arch should be hard and only a few selective hard-core linux users should be able to use.
I must be slow! I've used linux for 25 years. I thought I would install arch the long way a month ago. I got all the way through and got to installing grub and didn't know what to do! After googling for a while I gave up. I remember installing Gentoo without issue when it first came out. Must be me ;)
I would Not recommend Arch or anything Arch related like Endeavor to a new user. I believe it should be a choice of an experienced user that already had his time with Mint, Nobara or other non-hard distros. Also, don't think that Mint is a beginner distro, it's a distro that's suitable for beginners and any other user.
Once you get down to it, you can be a power user whether you are on something like Linux Mint or something like Arch/Gentoo. Those that think you have to use this, don't know Linux as well as they think they do.
Im on mint because nothing else works. I wanted mx kde or edubuntu or debian education or ubuntu studio but either installer broke or steam broke. So im stuck with mint
Yea, like he said, Arch and its relatives can be a real pain to maintain. Just because they're easy to install now doesn't mean they're for beginners. Or even for experienced users, unless they want to spend a decent bit of time maintaining their system.
EndeavourOS has been great. Pretty much Arch but with a much better installer 😛 Also, I have avoided many update issues by just waiting. I check for updates and then look online to see if people are crying about anything breaking their system. If there is an issue I just wait till they patch it and then update. Also snapshots for reverting any bad updates that slip through.
CacheOS, Endeavor OS, Ubuntu, Mint, Manjaro - have problem with mounting my ntfs drive (refuse to mount) debian, debian mint, fedora, pop os - do not have any problems with same ntfs drive (no drive check, no special treatment - it just work out of the box on live iso and installs) Any thoughts why?
Debian is hard to install too if you start with a base system. Arch isn't special except that it is the easiest system to build from "scratch," and it's rolling release. Oh, and that it has great documentation.
I've used Ubuntu casually in university in the past 2 years on my old laptop. I want to move on to something better and lighter with a windows manager (is that what you call them? Like hyperland or... Erm... Xdi11 or something Do you have any recommendations? I'm torn between Arch and NixOs. I feel NixOs have much more packages but has a sharper learning curve, whilst Arch seem easier but has less standard packages Ill be using it for coding and text editing at most.
Any idea why they don't improve the Arch install to make it easier? Looks like installing freebsd or something, all in text. At least Cachy OS seems nicer and easier.
I never found arch too much to deal with as long as you have basic linux knowledge and know how to read a guide and ask questions. I never got into gentoo tho. something about compiling everything seems too excessive to me
It is a balance, based on your needs. It is the great thing about Linux. You can generally find what works best for you. As an older Linux user/dev I have no desire to compile the apps for my desktop. Done enough of that over my time.
Hey can you give us a good custom fastfetch tutorial? I see your neofetch or fastfetch when your terminal prompt stats. I want to have the same. I use opensuse and KDE neon. Thanks
Idk. If someone can't Google. How to install arch and see "type archinstall" they might not be cut out for arch. Also. Seems like it would have been worth looking at what's actually in the desktop profiles part of the script since you were making a video about this.
I personally wouldn't recommend Arch-based distros to newbies, not because it's hard (it's not) but because maybe they just don't *need* it, however if you do need access to newer packages then at least try something like Endeavour or Cachy.
Arch devs: "Let's make installing Arch be a test of the user's intelligence." Me: "I just want to do computery things on a working computer." Hops to a non-abusive Linux distro relationship. Happiness.
When I got my new drives I wanted to reinstall both Windows and Linux with Arch via archinstall but everytime I do I just get a blackscreen whether it is KDE or Hyprland
There may still be reasons why they're not telling you about archinstall. It worked well on my laptop but on my main desktop machine it just crashes, and it does so after destroying all of the data on the drive
@@jamesgyoke9045 nothing special iirc, I didn't even do any manual paritioning. The only difference (I can think of) from the other machine where it worked was that this one had an nvme drive. Also I used btrfs on both
Once you said install in a vm it was over. Archinstall works fine in vm and always has. Now try to install it on real hardware on a system with multiple OS on a single drive. This should still be easy. But its not. Its broken and its so bad its just better to install everything manually. But yeah works great in a vm no shocker there.
In the first two minutes of today's video, a cat's head (so it appeared) popped up for about 2 seconds. Now, from where did that cat head come? (17-20seconds in)
The install procedure is a non-factor for the normie user. The average user doesn't even understand the concept of installing an OS, or even what an OS really is. What needs to happen is to have laptops with preinstalled Linux, doesn't matter which one but if the user needs to install a single common-use thing you've failed (GPU drivers, bluetooth/wifi, sound drivers).
Arch is 100% recommendable to new users, just educate them on how to properly run updates and to be careful in the AUR if they can manage to use YAY or another AUR helper. Combine that with Timeshift and they'll be right as rain. It's not that bad anymore, and stable distros like mint are NOT one size fits all. people do bounce off of that distro for various reasons. Get people into Arch early.
While I thank you for the Video and the time It takes to create a thing like this. This install process will become a thing of the past now that Valve is going to be backing it. A regular PC user that just wants to install an OS an get right to using it will not use this outdated process. It really takes a PC enthusiast with ample time on their hands to go the Arch route. I used to be a plucky young man with ample time to dive into this kind of stuff. Like Gentoo. I enjoyed it, I still enjoy it, If I still had the time to do it, I would. However, time as they say is the greatest resource. I have no time to do all this setup for a single computer. How many devices are in the average home that need to just work? Mark my words, the neck beards will start crying the moment Arch Linux is not E\_1Te any more. The time for a home server running VM's or Docker, with thin clients in every room is going to be move IMO. Or as Microsoft or Apple would do it. Operating systems as a service.
While I agree that might happen on consumer devices, it won't remove the need to install Linux on devices that are already owned. You might be too future forward.
It takes less than 10mins to install and "maintenance" is just doing a 'sudo pacman -Syu' every once in a while, how is that hard? And if it breaks? just use Timeshift or an equivalent and problem solved.
@@soda3185 I think you misunderstand the difference between how long something takes and its difficulty. Also in the video all I say is that the hardest part about Arch is maintaining it, as installing it is no longer hard. I didn't say it was hard. just not the most difficult part. The difference there is subtle.
I find it funny that Arch users think they're so clever. Talk to the guys in the 90s who installed Slackware and BSD, with very little support. I did this, and wouldn't want those days back.
If a linux user is going to use the installer then they might as well use arco or manjaro etc Installing arch without the installer is a learning experience, a rite of passage, a way to gauge your level of linux knowledge. The satisfaction from acheiving an arch install the hard way outweighs the "i use arch btw" bragging rights. Those who install without the installer understand. For this reason there must never be a gentoo or LFS installer, to encourage users to learn, to be frustrated but ultimately better users for going through the agony.
No, no and no. Installing Arch doesn't teach you anything except following instructions in English, something I learned when I was 7, even as a non-native speaker. A rite of passage? Maybe, if you want to turn using an operating system into a secret society, though I think that's more than a little cringe. As far as gauging your level of knowledge? Also hard no. The only real test of knowledge there is knowing to use cfdisk instead of fdisk as the guide recommends to partition. When I finally managed to get into a graphical environment after installing Arch "the right way" back in the day, I didn't feel a sense of satisfaction or superiority, only relief I was done and could see what all the buzz is about at last. Archinstall is just a quicker way to get the same system up and running. Installing an OS isn't a university course, it's just the process required to get your computer from a big, expensive paperweight to displaying funny cat videos, it's okay to take shortcuts when you can. In fact, I'd even recommend it, since you waste less of your time on pointless busywork. If you find it fun to mess around with partitioning, xservers and fstabs, go ahead, but don't act like you're superior to other people just because you followed an internet guide.
No, not really. Not with the resources available today. The rite of passage is about as bad as the meme-worthy, "btw". You want to go down that path, do LFS or something, even then, you are just reading very detailed online documents and typing in what it says to. Installing Linux distros today is not hard, it is not a "rite of passage". It can help you learn some basics, but honestly that will come more with maintaining it after and tinkering.
![Installing Arch Linux is EASY [ A Tutorial ] -- Linux for Newbs EP 1](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/8YE1LlTxfMQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Help support my content! patreon.com/thelinuxcast
Life was made so easy after the archinstall option, I don't care if people say that you are not a real arch user if you use it. I really don't care, I just want to install it and get on with my life
Agreed. The whole idea of "real Arch user" is stupid in the first place. Installing SLS or Slackware back in the early days would make many of those that act that way cry. They wouldn't have had the great Wiki, hell there was barely an internet at all. BBS was the main resource.
@@eloymelo I think people should should still give it a go because it’s cool how hands on it is. I still appreciate that you can do both though
@@alecmackintosh2734 if a person has the time, why not? Indeed it is cool to start from scratch and then have your system fully functional. But after a couple of times, you might as well use archinstall 😹
Archinstall actually made it harder to install the base system.
if you want to install in a vm, than you can do chroot way, mount vdi or qcow2 image than install manually with bootstrap 😊
I've installed Gentoo many times. Spent hours configuring stuff. Installed Arch and Slackware by hand. Slackware before package managers. Manually resolved dependencies. Now I'm not the young woman with no responsibilities anymore and just want to have a working computer so I can get on with my life.
Thank you for the video.
Feels like we've come full-circle with Arch's installation. Back in 2010 when I first used it, there was an ncurses installer, and getting set up was pretty easy. Then they removed it a couple years later for whatever reason, and now the easy install option is back. Feels so weird how the installer was gone for the longest time.
I used to be a diehard Debian user but now switched to Arch. Happier with Arch. It just runs quicker and everything works (nvidia drivers) without going in circles. Running as a daily on a TR Pro.
Looking forward to Matt's Arch install in 2037 when XFCE 4.20 launches.
Too optimistic.
A major gotcha not mentioned in this video is that the newer archinstall script (introduced with the August built iso and newer) it searches for mirrors instead of just generically setting the mirrors for your region based on your choice. The result of this is as you see in the video a very slow testing of the mirrors. But whats worse is that it doesn't test them thoroughly enough and even with parallel downloads enabled the installation will be dog slow. You gotta skip that part and do the mirror checking yourself with a reflector --latest 50 --sort rate --save /etc/pacman.d/mirrorlist command. You do this alongside setting the parallel download count in pacman.conf before starting archinstall and then don't mess with the mirrors option inside the installer itself.
Also archinstall is just a package you can install to install arch on basically any storage device you want.
This right here is a classic example of why Windows and MACOS is popular, or why people tend to choose easy distros. Here is a long time linux user, who has a long history of using Arch, though hasn't in a year or so. Tries to install arch via the "Easy way" and still had errors. Again, in the real world, Most everyone simply don't have the time to be battling an OS, they don't have the time to "maintenance" arch. For example, I can't go about study or a board exam, or for a big dissertation, or for a big project at work, and at the same time have time to be babying my computer installation. God bless those who have that time, but most people simply don't.
@@Powerincarnate. To understand how to install an OS is a life's prerequisite. You will not learn mathematics just when need it. And about the installation, Arch is thinked to be manual, to personalize... If you want something someone did for you AND something stable you use something Debian based for example.
So.... About the time, you shouldnt reinstall your OS when you are busy, nor even a manual one... But you may have an snapshot.
And to dont have to maintain, you use a stable lts distribution...
I thing you are right about what you said, but, there is some prerequisites for life that would make everything easier.
No, you install system like CachyOS where everything just works out of the box without unnecesary bloat. Arch really is for people with too much free time.
Arch Linux is not for those that doesn't want to sacrifice their time. I don't think I'm allowed say this, you are just keep putting the blame to Arch Linux because its not suitable distro for you. Just treat Arch Linux as a hobby distro if you love tinkering with something.
What errors did he experience? Must have missed those.
that's why I run mint.....these days with flatpak and distrobox its not like I am missing out on anything
I think showing your failure and the steps going through to correct is, is invaluable. Its much more useful than if you had chosen the Desktop install in the beginning, which wouldn't teach nearly as this video now.
It depends on the user. If they are not a technical user or someone who is comfortable on the terminal, then I would never recommend it as their first foray into Linux. Even if they are somewhat technical, it still is often better as a second distro or a VM to learn more about Linux. I am an old school Linux user/dev starting back in the Softlanding days. Arch was never hard for me. We didn't have the great Arch Wiki or anything close to that back in the day. That said, Arch is not a distro I choose to use. It really does not do anything for me, I cannot do on any other distro. Now think of it from a fresh new user from Windows, who barely knows the DOS prompt. The quickest way to keep them on Windows is have them install Linux from a command prompt, Archinstall or not. I do very much recommend they try Arch at some point, as it is a great way to learn things that are done for you by other distros, but only if they want to learn. The great thing about modern Linux, if you don't need to learn the underbelly of it, then you don't have too.
As an old Arch user, I think using Arch doesn't add much value to my workflow. I now moved to debian stable for my base distro and extensively use flatpak and nix package manager to get new stuff (add to that distro-box). It has drastically changed my computer usage and I have no headache on whatever distro I'm using.
What about AUR?
@@danielspalma nix pkgs covers *most* of them, at least in my case.
@@danielspalma You can set up an Arch instance using a distro-box, which allows you to get AUR packages without
affecting system libraries. However, I usually build my own packages if I can't find them with the other mentioned methods (which rarely happen)."
nobody cares you went from a distro that provides latest packages to a distro which doesn't provide latest package and have to use band aid hackjobs like flatpak and 3rd party n*x to get latest packages. Weird.
Installed CachyOS on one of my machines. Outstanding experience. They do all of the Arch heavy lifting for me.
CachyOS gang
I prefer EndeavourOS because they use the stock Arch repos, which allows me to use the AUR without nuking my system.
CachyOS is a piece of impressive work. As an old hardware owner (Xeon plus RTX 4060) I distro hop a lot searching for the best performance possible.
So far, CachyOS made a miracle here. Wayland, VRR, everything works well and very fast. No issues so far. The closest was Fedora 40. But CachyOS is absolutely amazing.
@@cameronbosch1213EndeavourOS (Gnome) was terrible on my machine, unfortunately. No Wayland, VRR or even Bluetooth worked.
Then moved to CachyOS and everything works flawlessly.
@@GustavoBhr I agree. I don't use CachyOS (because I don't like its themes) but I use their packages in Arch.
I do love Arco, all the Arch with a nice clicky GUI
Great video. Thanks.
We got matt re-installing arch before gta 6!!
Nice video! Still don't understand why people say that maintenance is hard on Arch. I just run pacman - Syu every so often and that's been working without problem for about 2 years for me. Maybe there was a time when it broke more and the reputation stuck
@@sebnargeurbrok1374 been on arch for over two years, and a few times a year updates break stuff for me. audio, login manager, plasma (latest issues from this year)
If I'd need a distro that never breaks I would switch. but I have time to repair each time
Yeah maybe this. I personally would also say that Arch can be hard for the people how are new to Linux and in a way or form non-techy.
I have used Arch for a year almost and stopped somewhere around june due to constant system freezes, I wanted to play some Hunt Showdown with friends but it really didnt want to let me, it always crashed for some reazon. It was stable for all this time until then, I assume that some update broke something but because it was a deep system freeze there was no way for me to find out what it was so I just gave up and gave Thumbleweed a chance. I'm still amazed how nice and reliable this distro is.
Oh yeah it's difficult alright
You are one day away from nuking your system
@@gelbphoenix definitely a steep learning curve!
The Archinstall-er is really nice now. You're gonna love it Matt!
Default, for me, means without a config-file setting and obviously with a out-commented "ParallelDownloads = 5" 1 is the default of pacman.
I'm pretty OK with Arch being easier to install than it ever has been... It undermines the "I use Arch btw" bs which itself undermines how good Arch actually is. I'd love for there to be more room for Arch to get that recognition that it deserves.
I just download the iso and ran the archinstall TWICE. No where does it offer the option of installing a DE! Must have changed in the last few days ...
I switched to Arch just a few days ago. Did not read the any instructions.
Just used the Arch install-script and installed a KDE desktop. And it runs.
It was not very difficult. But I am using Linux for a long time. Just never tried Arch.
Although I have used Garuda Linux and that did crash on me. Hopes this one runs much longer.
Arch Install via Script is pretty good, it make my life so much easier, and the only reason why I didn't use arch Linux was the process of installing the OS, I like command line, I love it, but installing the OS is a pain and I just don't want to use it, There were other projects, but they were not great. So I tied arch install, I loved it, simple, minimal OS just the way, I like it, it's perfect and makes my life easy,
It's giving you the choice of how you can install your OS, and I like automation. So in the book, the script has changed a lot, and I love it.
The first time i installed Arch as a new user, but someone who had some experience with linux. I booted up the ISO , thought it was broken and installed something with a GUI. I later came back to it and watched a guide on how to install it.
I like arch for a few reasons. But i'm still not experienced enough to know all the packages i need. Simple things like trying to get 7zip and trying to get basic themes working how i want. Maybe it was the Desktop Environment i chose at the time.
I still run arch on my laptop , but its Manjao. That way i can still play with arch , but they did all the crap i didnt know how to do during the install.
Does it still store the disk encryption password in plain text? Only reason why I stopped using Arch with archinstall.
I would never ever recommend Arch to new users! Not because it's hard to install, but as you said, it's hard to maintain. Especially if you update every day, then there's a broken package and new users have no idea what to do about it and blame linux as a whole. Definitely not! For new users Ubuntu and its derivatives or Fedora and its derivatives!
The ArchLinux community are some of the most hardcore mofos out-there, no wonder that they do not want others to use the script. Archinstall is meant for experienced ArchLinux users who have already installed the OS at least a dozen of times :)
next time try running archinstall --advanced choose multi downloads
i tried and failed with archinstall, and was successful following the wiki
Ohhh, I'll have to try for my nixos install cuz I'm failing using nix wiki
I think the reason parallel downloading isn't on by default, is that not everyone has fast enough internet to really make that any faster, or at least fast enough to justify it being on. anything below a certain speed and it'll just slow down the install rather than speed it up.
I have tried it, but its very buggy when trying to setup encrypted LVM and there is not an easy way to edit partition sizes
I honestly hate that thumbnail "Arch is still easy", it has a negative meaning to it, like Arch should be hard and only a few selective hard-core linux users should be able to use.
is there a way I can make sure Arch has drivers for my Wifi adapter (Broadcom Inc. and subsidiaries BCM43142 802.11b/g/n (rev 01)) ?
I must be slow! I've used linux for 25 years. I thought I would install arch the long way a month ago. I got all the way through and got to installing grub and didn't know what to do! After googling for a while I gave up. I remember installing Gentoo without issue when it first came out. Must be me ;)
probably breaks because of testing repo if you only use multilib its pretty ok
I would Not recommend Arch or anything Arch related like Endeavor to a new user. I believe it should be a choice of an experienced user that already had his time with Mint, Nobara or other non-hard distros.
Also, don't think that Mint is a beginner distro, it's a distro that's suitable for beginners and any other user.
Once you get down to it, you can be a power user whether you are on something like Linux Mint or something like Arch/Gentoo. Those that think you have to use this, don't know Linux as well as they think they do.
Im on mint because nothing else works. I wanted mx kde or edubuntu or debian education or ubuntu studio but either installer broke or steam broke. So im stuck with mint
Do you count SteamOS as Arch related? ;-)
EndeavorOS was my first linux and it wasn't hard
Yea, like he said, Arch and its relatives can be a real pain to maintain. Just because they're easy to install now doesn't mean they're for beginners. Or even for experienced users, unless they want to spend a decent bit of time maintaining their system.
EndeavourOS has been great. Pretty much Arch but with a much better installer 😛
Also, I have avoided many update issues by just waiting. I check for updates and then look online to see if people are crying about anything breaking their system. If there is an issue I just wait till they patch it and then update. Also snapshots for reverting any bad updates that slip through.
They need to add the snapper support with automatic grub entries like openSUSE
CacheOS, Endeavor OS, Ubuntu, Mint, Manjaro - have problem with mounting my ntfs drive (refuse to mount)
debian, debian mint, fedora, pop os - do not have any problems with same ntfs drive (no drive check, no special treatment - it just work out of the box on live iso and installs)
Any thoughts why?
Something's up with your partition. I've been able to mount NTFS fine with those distros.
@@cubedmelons876 but not up anough for fedora, debian, debian mint, pop os for some reason
Debian is hard to install too if you start with a base system. Arch isn't special except that it is the easiest system to build from "scratch," and it's rolling release. Oh, and that it has great documentation.
I've used Ubuntu casually in university in the past 2 years on my old laptop.
I want to move on to something better and lighter with a windows manager (is that what you call them? Like hyperland or... Erm... Xdi11 or something
Do you have any recommendations? I'm torn between Arch and NixOs.
I feel NixOs have much more packages but has a sharper learning curve, whilst Arch seem easier but has less standard packages
Ill be using it for coding and text editing at most.
Any idea why they don't improve the Arch install to make it easier? Looks like installing freebsd or something, all in text. At least Cachy OS seems nicer and easier.
Is text not "nice" somehow? 😂 Get over it, you're installing an operating system.
I never found arch too much to deal with as long as you have basic linux knowledge and know how to read a guide and ask questions. I never got into gentoo tho. something about compiling everything seems too excessive to me
It is a balance, based on your needs. It is the great thing about Linux. You can generally find what works best for you. As an older Linux user/dev I have no desire to compile the apps for my desktop. Done enough of that over my time.
Yep. The only thing that have changed is a bunch of WM's available out of the box in install script
Hey can you give us a good custom fastfetch tutorial? I see your neofetch or fastfetch when your terminal prompt stats. I want to have the same. I use opensuse and KDE neon. Thanks
Idk. If someone can't Google. How to install arch and see "type archinstall" they might not be cut out for arch.
Also. Seems like it would have been worth looking at what's actually in the desktop profiles part of the script since you were making a video about this.
I personally wouldn't recommend Arch-based distros to newbies, not because it's hard (it's not) but because maybe they just don't *need* it, however if you do need access to newer packages then at least try something like Endeavour or Cachy.
Arch devs: "Let's make installing Arch be a test of the user's intelligence."
Me: "I just want to do computery things on a working computer."
Hops to a non-abusive Linux distro relationship.
Happiness.
@@k.b.tidwell cof cof archinstall cof cof
archinstall still doesn't respect my separate /efi and /boot partitions so I continue to install manually
Install and review fedora kde 41
When I got my new drives I wanted to reinstall both Windows and Linux with Arch via archinstall but everytime I do I just get a blackscreen whether it is KDE or Hyprland
There may still be reasons why they're not telling you about archinstall. It worked well on my laptop but on my main desktop machine it just crashes, and it does so after destroying all of the data on the drive
What did you do during partitioning?
@@jamesgyoke9045 nothing special iirc, I didn't even do any manual paritioning. The only difference (I can think of) from the other machine where it worked was that this one had an nvme drive. Also I used btrfs on both
is ALG (Arch Linux GUI) safe?
1-Why enabling testing?
2- you didn't choose EFi in VM why ?
3- GDM with xfce? Why? ( made for gnome)
Because lightdm is dog crap.
@@TheLinuxCast lol.. I suppose you know sddm?
@@neotwenty-nineBzH oh yes. Let's install all the kde dependencies.
@@TheLinuxCast absolutely not. Sddm doesn't bring the kde pile with it.
If you run archinstall --advanced, it supports parallel downloads.
Steve told me. Definitely should be default
@@TheLinuxCast Absolutely. Parallel downloads should not be in the same category as "NTFS as root partition", which is also hidden under --advanced.
I would like to have same util for install clear arch witch i3. Great video.
i have been using archinstall and it reduced the installation time significantly for me.
Once you said install in a vm it was over. Archinstall works fine in vm and always has. Now try to install it on real hardware on a system with multiple OS on a single drive. This should still be easy. But its not. Its broken and its so bad its just better to install everything manually. But yeah works great in a vm no shocker there.
In the first two minutes of today's video, a cat's head (so it appeared) popped up for about 2 seconds.
Now, from where did that cat head come? (17-20seconds in)
It's my dog. I kept wondering why people kept telling me there was a cat in my video. lol
The install procedure is a non-factor for the normie user. The average user doesn't even understand the concept of installing an OS, or even what an OS really is. What needs to happen is to have laptops with preinstalled Linux, doesn't matter which one but if the user needs to install a single common-use thing you've failed (GPU drivers, bluetooth/wifi, sound drivers).
I always long install arch because the archinstall script always breaks for me plus doing the long install is fun i always try to beat my old time.
arch has got a lot easier to install, i miss the old days... lol
Meanwhile, Artix has had a proper graphical installer for.... How long?
Try installing Void Linux MANUALLY
Not easy enough.😅
So you have a cat. Any other pets?
I don't have a cat. I have a dog
Arch install makes things so much easier, but OpenSUSE on the other hand...I can never get a good install of it :/
That seems odd. OpenSuse has always been one of the easier installs.
@@Cyco_Nix right? I have no idea why between 3 systems it's been a PITA
@@user-be3mk6cg4c Yeah, you never know what will cause issues. Had the same over the years that never made sense either.
Yes, hey... for noobs
point to archinstall at the prompt - duh
I don't get it either.
Arch is 100% recommendable to new users, just educate them on how to properly run updates and to be careful in the AUR if they can manage to use YAY or another AUR helper. Combine that with Timeshift and they'll be right as rain. It's not that bad anymore, and stable distros like mint are NOT one size fits all. people do bounce off of that distro for various reasons. Get people into Arch early.
While I thank you for the Video and the time It takes to create a thing like this. This install process will become a thing of the past now that Valve is going to be backing it. A regular PC user that just wants to install an OS an get right to using it will not use this outdated process. It really takes a PC enthusiast with ample time on their hands to go the Arch route. I used to be a plucky young man with ample time to dive into this kind of stuff. Like Gentoo. I enjoyed it, I still enjoy it, If I still had the time to do it, I would. However, time as they say is the greatest resource. I have no time to do all this setup for a single computer. How many devices are in the average home that need to just work? Mark my words, the neck beards will start crying the moment Arch Linux is not E\_1Te any more. The time for a home server running VM's or Docker, with thin clients in every room is going to be move IMO. Or as Microsoft or Apple would do it. Operating systems as a service.
While I agree that might happen on consumer devices, it won't remove the need to install Linux on devices that are already owned. You might be too future forward.
It takes less than 10mins to install and "maintenance" is just doing a 'sudo pacman -Syu' every once in a while, how is that hard? And if it breaks? just use Timeshift or an equivalent and problem solved.
@@soda3185 I think you misunderstand the difference between how long something takes and its difficulty.
Also in the video all I say is that the hardest part about Arch is maintaining it, as installing it is no longer hard. I didn't say it was hard. just not the most difficult part. The difference there is subtle.
you use arch btw
Just run CachyOS
Archinstall is great but for example Calamares installer would be even better.
Just waiting for KDE 6.2 to realease, running it in my Arch build.
The official Installation Guide for Arch doesn't even mention archinstall. I still see it as an elitist snob thing. Nothing else.
O_o You call that easy?!...
Easier than it used to be?
Arch is back on the menu!
bro is in the logo of arch.
I use ubuntu and I dont care
I find it funny that Arch users think they're so clever. Talk to the guys in the 90s who installed Slackware and BSD, with very little support. I did this, and wouldn't want those days back.
Try ML4W Hyprland script while you're on Arch.
Been using Stephan Raabe's ML4W script on Arcolinux and EndeavourOS for a while now without issue.
Arch gives me the feeling of using my computer without an operating system. And I love it!
Arch linux with install script-👶
Arch before install script-🗿🗿
I use windows now ... linux needs to fix up their desktop
Arch is for babies dude try nix os
Not a real distro
@@TheLinuxCast bruh initial release 2003 wat you talkin about not a real distro?????
@@atticus6626 trolling nix users is a pastime of mine.
@@atticus6626 NixOS? More like NahOS.
@@space_audits show a better linux distro! you cant
If a linux user is going to use the installer then they might as well use arco or manjaro etc
Installing arch without the installer is a learning experience, a rite of passage, a way to gauge your level of linux knowledge. The satisfaction from acheiving an arch install the hard way outweighs the "i use arch btw" bragging rights.
Those who install without the installer understand.
For this reason there must never be a gentoo or LFS installer, to encourage users to learn, to be frustrated but ultimately better users for going through the agony.
No, no and no. Installing Arch doesn't teach you anything except following instructions in English, something I learned when I was 7, even as a non-native speaker. A rite of passage? Maybe, if you want to turn using an operating system into a secret society, though I think that's more than a little cringe. As far as gauging your level of knowledge? Also hard no. The only real test of knowledge there is knowing to use cfdisk instead of fdisk as the guide recommends to partition. When I finally managed to get into a graphical environment after installing Arch "the right way" back in the day, I didn't feel a sense of satisfaction or superiority, only relief I was done and could see what all the buzz is about at last. Archinstall is just a quicker way to get the same system up and running. Installing an OS isn't a university course, it's just the process required to get your computer from a big, expensive paperweight to displaying funny cat videos, it's okay to take shortcuts when you can. In fact, I'd even recommend it, since you waste less of your time on pointless busywork. If you find it fun to mess around with partitioning, xservers and fstabs, go ahead, but don't act like you're superior to other people just because you followed an internet guide.
No, not really. Not with the resources available today. The rite of passage is about as bad as the meme-worthy, "btw". You want to go down that path, do LFS or something, even then, you are just reading very detailed online documents and typing in what it says to. Installing Linux distros today is not hard, it is not a "rite of passage". It can help you learn some basics, but honestly that will come more with maintaining it after and tinkering.
Arch is a scary religion
I wanna see a Gentoo or LFS installer get made just to see the reactions.
@@cubedmelons876 That would be popcorn worthy.
I use Arch, btw.