MatMoul
real difference between archfi and vanilla installation
In Arch Linux social archfi (installations with archfi) is forbidden and banned.
What is the difference between an installation with archfi and as per installation guide? https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Installation_guide
archfi prepares command lines and knows all the choices and options. What else?
Did you compare vanilla and archfi installation (images) side-by-side once? Difference in directory tree and in files?
In Arch Linux social archfi (installations with archfi) is forbidden and banned.
Can you please give source for this?
https://bbs.archlinux.de/viewtopic.php?id=32931 https://bbs.archlinux.de/viewtopic.php?pid=377851#p377851 https://bbs.archlinux.org/misc.php?action=rules
"Eine Arch Linux Installation impliziert, dass du der Installationsanleitung des offiziellen Wikis gefolgt bist."
Only true and genuine installations of Arch Linux by hand (no scripts) allowed/accepted.
So what is the real difference archfi versus vanilla?
I think at Arch Linux they are too lazy to write good install scripts.
The first principle of Arch is simplicity: without unnecessary additions or modifications. Wiki so it is expected to avoid such a burdensome install method, even it's user-friendly, I think.
So you would think someone that creates a script "by hand" to make it somewhat simpler for new user to use the system would be beneficial. It's intimidating to a new user. Let them use scripts learn from their mistakes correct them and then possibly they can do by hand
Linux is about learning and contribution not "lets make this install hard so users mess up their install and revert to an ubuntu install" It's arch's way so i don't complain but guys like this that take the time to create scripts deserve a lil love
The end result is exactly the same as if you ran the same commands manually
I've recently used this script & I'm pretty much stunned how great the script works. Basically I used this to configure partitioning, base install, fstab, user config, xorg, time & location, dhcpcd & grub. (which freed most of my code remembering) Beside this, I can totally dive into desktop environment & application installations & much more stuff that I don't need. Kudos to matmoul.
archfi is probably the closest installer to the installation presented in the wiki. But Arch Linux is intended to be a distribution that requires knowing all the ins and outs of each packages. You can use archfi to get an overview and train yourself on the installation of this distribution, create VMs for your developments or your different tests. But you will always have to know what you are doing.
But now they have their own guided and automated "official" installer: https://archlinux.org/packages/extra/any/archinstall/ Why hasn't archfi been choosen to be the official installer?
I'm just guessing, but I think it's because the official installer is a CUI interactive format and looks simpler. Well, as far as functionality goes, that thing is terrible...
But now they have their own guided and automated "official" installer: https://archlinux.org/packages/extra/any/archinstall/ Why hasn't archfi been choosen to be the official installer?
I donno about this. How does this "archinstall" works anyways? Caz there's no guides & tutorials for that.