• apprehensively_human@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    13 hours ago

    The rationale in the OP is that with archinstall, an inexperienced user will have no idea where to even begin diagnosing any issues post install. Whereas installing manually is sort of a barrier to entry that ensures you know what you’re doing.

    • NotSteve_@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 hour ago

      It’s been a while since I installed arch manually, but wouldn’t that only help you understand a bit on disk partitioning and some basic commands like copying files/chrooting? You generally learn that stuff the first time your install breaks on any distro

    • Atherel@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      8 hours ago

      That’s a stupid reason to make an installation as painful as possible. I can follow the installation wiki but I just don’t have time for this. And an inexperienced user can follow the wiki or another how-to and finish the installation but still be lost if something breaks later on.

      • KubeRoot@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 hours ago

        It’s not being made “as painful as possible”, it’s just manual. Arch isn’t a distro that’ll preconfigure things for you so everything’s plug’n’play, it’s a distro that’ll give you access to everything and the power to use it however you like, but with that comes the expectation and responsibility to manage those things.

        Installing arch manually is simply a good lesson in how your system is set up, what parts it’s made up of, in part because you’re free to remove and switch out those parts.

        And sure, there’s no magic bullet to make sure a new user understands everything they did, but I think in the end, if you’re not willing to read, learn and troubleshoot, you might just want a different distro.