I use Mint and not Arch, but my hot take: I think the reason a lot of Linux people get so pissy about Archinstall is gatekeeping. They're threatened by the 'democratization' of Arch by allowing less technically capable people (I don't mean Tom) to use the distro. But if we want more people to use Linux, that means making it more available to people; not less.
i used archinstall to install arch on my laptop last night! Very good so far, my only issue was NetworkManager service was not on when i booted up, and i had a little trouble enabling it. 9/10 experience
I first installed Arch manually more than a decade ago; it was tedious and took the better part of a night, but at the end, it worked and I learned something new. Having said that, when I went to install Arch on my laptop and my new home machine, I used Archinstall to assist. And in my opinion, already being comfortable with using Arch makes that install process even more efficient. When you're going to be spending who knows how long doing the post-install setup, any time you can shave off of the installation itself is a net positive.
@@nextprogram5945 Yes, but the point of archinstall is to be beginner friendly. Nothing points you in the direction of multilib when you are going without it, and launching games just silently fails with no indication of what's going wrong. It is much less headache to add it during the installation.
A few comments from me. 1. When in the terminal/tty you are being asked Y/n or y/N then the capitalized options is the default choice. In the case of pacman, when you install a package you don't need to enter the Y, you can simply press the "enter/return"-key and then "yes" is chosen. This just is a general convention on Linux because people are lazy and prefer to type less. 😉 2. The LTS-kernel on Arch is only 1 year old, so LTS on Arch is not quite the same as LTS on Debian/Ubuntu. 3. GRUB has been broken quite a few times in the last years. Many people got an unbootable system, just because GRUB broke for their hardware. In my case all of the sudden I couldn't use grub-customizer anymore, so I couldn't configure GRUUB anymore unless I changed the GRUB files myself which is rather painful. That is one reason why I couldn't use the Arch-install script, Systemdboot is not an option in the script yet but that is a lot easier for many systems and it is more stable, it is not faster though.
i personally believe that the whole point of arch existing should be the DIY approach, but you reach a point where you just enjoy pacman and aur and are too tired to customize your system for the 10th time and 15 hours of stuff
I wished i watched this couple of days earlier when i tried archinstall on my new thinkpad. I chose minimal install and had issues installing the desktop environment and greeter. Not a arch problem but me problem i know
Well, well, Is it easy to dualboot with arch install or EndeavourOS is still the best arch based distro to dualboot? *Le me: using linux for 8 months. Changed distros 60 times. Tried almost every distro. Even arch (basically with EndeavourOS). Haven't touch the windows partition for like 3-4 months and still I wish to keep it. Hey, is there a good linux alternative to dts audio processing.
Give Garuda a shot, at least in a VM and see how you like an Arch fork. I did, then bare metal to a laptop. Garuda has almost everything scripted into a GUI interface, so not much terminal is mandatory.
Is installing Arch really the most challenging aspect of it? People always talk about the installation as a barrier to entry for newcomers, but with that out of the way, is it then suddenly a noob-friendly distribution? Something tells me that's not the case, but I don't have the experience to be sure about it.
It really depends on how you set your system up. If you didn't install something yourself (or tell archinstaller to do it), you don't have it in Arch, so there may be features of other linux desktop systems you took for granted that you need to do something to enable For example, you need to set up sudo for it to exist - it's not just part of the gnu standard toolkit after all
As the poster above says there are some post-install things you need to do, but if you count initial system config as part of installation (which I think is fair), after both are done it becomes just like any distro. You just need to be more on it with updates than something slower paced. the post-install steps are also extremely well-documented, so they aren't particularly hard as long as you follow the step-by-step on the wiki.
@@geekygiganerd I don't think it should matter - "he" says that he cannot find boot partition (or rather crashes with such indication). Although I think I have changed hostname. I also install it on MBR partition table.
What makes Arch "difficult" to install is things like partitioning the hard disk manually and getting UEFI to boot from it. Which aren't part of Arch at all, and will be the same on any other distro if you choose to set those things up manually. And following the steps in Arch's wiki might be clearer and easier than using an automagical installer that happens not to work as intended on that particular machine. I haven't ever used Archinstall so this is just my prejudice, but I think if an installer is going to go wrong it will do so during an "on metal" install, and therefore videos showing how "easy" it is... on a Virtual Machine... will be likely to miss out what's difficult. This video is really good and covers its topic perfectly, but I would say if you want to know how to install Arch Linux, don't watch videos about Arch Linux. Watch videos about UEFI and Grub and partitioning and kernel modules: and all the other topics that have headings in the manual (which you'll of course read!).
There are plenty of videos and articlds about installing Arch which properly cover partitioning, filesystems and the bootloader, among other Ermano Ferrari his videos. I do agree that this is the biggest hurdle for people who struggle with installing Arch. Not the only one but the most problematic one. Nothing is difficult about it but you do need to spend some time on learning a few things, about that but also for example about your hosts-file, about which packages you need for essential features like sound, what chrooting is (when you need to do that to recover your system. Simple things but it takes a bit of time if it is new to you. One little example of a mistake which I made in the past: I made the users config-directory as root-user, planning to later change the permissions, the consequence was that I had no audio at first because PulseAudio couldn't do what was required (permission-issue?).
Yeah no. There is a new version and it is quite an often thing. Saying there is no new version of arch suggests to people that a downloaded iso is up to date constantly and can be kept to install from for prolonged time. Which isnt true, Arch provides updated ISO very often and failure to use the newest version may result in user installing unusable system plagued by all the keyring bs
@@chilligarcia6854 From what I have observed, Tom usually tests distros in a virtual machine, only installing on bare metal hardware in special cases or for clients
i hate the older packages. Debian has its cool things like dpkg but those are mostly usefull on servers. for a desktop i would 100% use a rolling release
I thought that, then I realised that the version of neovim in the apt repos is ancient and for some reason it doesn't appear to be backported. Which means I can't have lunarvim on debian, which is seriously making me think I need something more bleeding edge.
@@islam-karam oh think ik what u mean, the bouncy icon when u open an app? if so you can disable it or change it, im not sure about the path to get there but it might be in desktop effects. (im not sure) but you can definitly disable it
Arch is just another"Over hyped "linux regular distro,a lot of people inside linux bubble hate this small group,it same problem with GNU/cult years before,when Arch be forgotten,some wacko joes from Canada or USA s basements will build another distro hype and say"i use(instert distro) by the way"...
its a good tutorial,but im not will join the Arch cult,because its a regular distro that does not"operate Miracles",like Running Full Windows apps without wine or another "mambo jambo gumble"like this,so good luck for new Arch cult sheeps....
Maybe its me...but this is just a bit too much for a Linux install I much prefer OpenSuSE and Fedora..not as complicated..and SuSE is an industry standard in the server world...so yeah...but its nice to play around with I guess...
![Installing Arch Linux is EASY [ A Tutorial ] -- Linux for Newbs EP 1](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/8YE1LlTxfMQ/mqdefault.jpg)
I use Mint and not Arch, but my hot take: I think the reason a lot of Linux people get so pissy about Archinstall is gatekeeping. They're threatened by the 'democratization' of Arch by allowing less technically capable people (I don't mean Tom) to use the distro. But if we want more people to use Linux, that means making it more available to people; not less.
Well said
@@pinguxor I Second that
Spot On
@@RetosSpace Same here. It’ll show newer Linux users that it isn’t nearly as unstable or easy to break as stereotypes tend to suggest.
I have used the normal way to install arch and archinstall (for the love of god just use archinstall) BONUS you now get to say I USE ARCH BY THE WAY.
i used archinstall to install arch on my laptop last night! Very good so far, my only issue was NetworkManager service was not on when i booted up, and i had a little trouble enabling it. 9/10 experience
I first installed Arch manually more than a decade ago; it was tedious and took the better part of a night, but at the end, it worked and I learned something new.
Having said that, when I went to install Arch on my laptop and my new home machine, I used Archinstall to assist. And in my opinion, already being comfortable with using Arch makes that install process even more efficient. When you're going to be spending who knows how long doing the post-install setup, any time you can shave off of the installation itself is a net positive.
arch is supposed to be a lightweight general purpouse distro.
I dont understand how someone could say that the only way to install is manually.
‼‼WARNING, if you are in any way into gaming or want to use wine, you should add multilib in the additional repositories section.
Is it not possible to install it after?
@@nextprogram5945 Yes, but the point of archinstall is to be beginner friendly. Nothing points you in the direction of multilib when you are going without it, and launching games just silently fails with no indication of what's going wrong. It is much less headache to add it during the installation.
@@nextprogram5945You can still enable it
@@nextprogram5945you could add it after, yeah.
ofc
the BEST Linux installer ever.
excellent video! i installed arch using the script and i couldn't believe it when it only took 10 minutes to install.
A few comments from me.
1. When in the terminal/tty you are being asked Y/n or y/N then the capitalized options is the default choice. In the case of pacman, when you install a package you don't need to enter the Y, you can simply press the "enter/return"-key and then "yes" is chosen. This just is a general convention on Linux because people are lazy and prefer to type less. 😉
2. The LTS-kernel on Arch is only 1 year old, so LTS on Arch is not quite the same as LTS on Debian/Ubuntu.
3. GRUB has been broken quite a few times in the last years. Many people got an unbootable system, just because GRUB broke for their hardware. In my case all of the sudden I couldn't use grub-customizer anymore, so I couldn't configure GRUUB anymore unless I changed the GRUB files myself which is rather painful. That is one reason why I couldn't use the Arch-install script, Systemdboot is not an option in the script yet but that is a lot easier for many systems and it is more stable, it is not faster though.
i personally believe that the whole point of arch existing should be the DIY approach, but you reach a point where you just enjoy pacman and aur and are too tired to customize your system for the 10th time and 15 hours of stuff
I wished i watched this couple of days earlier when i tried archinstall on my new thinkpad. I chose minimal install and had issues installing the desktop environment and greeter. Not a arch problem but me problem i know
I Like OpenSuse Leap latest release and waiting for the next build which will be more exciting than now.
Well, well,
Is it easy to dualboot with arch install or EndeavourOS is still the best arch based distro to dualboot?
*Le me: using linux for 8 months. Changed distros 60 times. Tried almost every distro. Even arch (basically with EndeavourOS). Haven't touch the windows partition for like 3-4 months and still I wish to keep it.
Hey, is there a good linux alternative to dts audio processing.
I'm still happy about the ports repo edit to get arm64 compile on x86 on mint I did yesterday.
i use arch btw, and I have for about four to five months
I've only ever used Mint and Ubuntu. I'm not great at entering command lines, or any kind of code. Hence, the easier versions of Linux...
Give Garuda a shot, at least in a VM and see how you like an Arch fork. I did, then bare metal to a laptop. Garuda has almost everything scripted into a GUI interface, so not much terminal is mandatory.
Sounds like you've found your home, enjoy it... but don't be afraid of at least trying Debian which Ubuntu is based on.
Awesome video Tom!
LLAP 🖖
gnome software manager is working fine.
Is installing Arch really the most challenging aspect of it? People always talk about the installation as a barrier to entry for newcomers, but with that out of the way, is it then suddenly a noob-friendly distribution? Something tells me that's not the case, but I don't have the experience to be sure about it.
It really depends on how you set your system up. If you didn't install something yourself (or tell archinstaller to do it), you don't have it in Arch, so there may be features of other linux desktop systems you took for granted that you need to do something to enable
For example, you need to set up sudo for it to exist - it's not just part of the gnu standard toolkit after all
As the poster above says there are some post-install things you need to do, but if you count initial system config as part of installation (which I think is fair), after both are done it becomes just like any distro. You just need to be more on it with updates than something slower paced.
the post-install steps are also extremely well-documented, so they aren't particularly hard as long as you follow the step-by-step on the wiki.
1:30 - You just got me. Bye-bye Kubuntu, Hello Arch.
Can you do a video where you save the arch script and use that to do a fresh install of arch?
Can you do videos on how to secure arch linux?
the first step is to define what you are protecting again
@@bacalhau_seco I mean normal stuff like, appArmor, firewall, how to trust or not certain apps, etc, timeshift
Unfortunately it is quite buggy. Every time I use it, I'm able to "crash" it. Also it does not allow to install Arch without /boot partition.
do u modify the hostname from archlinux to something else? Not changing the hostname works for my pc
@@geekygiganerd I don't think it should matter - "he" says that he cannot find boot partition (or rather crashes with such indication). Although I think I have changed hostname. I also install it on MBR partition table.
What makes Arch "difficult" to install is things like partitioning the hard disk manually and getting UEFI to boot from it. Which aren't part of Arch at all, and will be the same on any other distro if you choose to set those things up manually. And following the steps in Arch's wiki might be clearer and easier than using an automagical installer that happens not to work as intended on that particular machine. I haven't ever used Archinstall so this is just my prejudice, but I think if an installer is going to go wrong it will do so during an "on metal" install, and therefore videos showing how "easy" it is... on a Virtual Machine... will be likely to miss out what's difficult. This video is really good and covers its topic perfectly, but I would say if you want to know how to install Arch Linux, don't watch videos about Arch Linux. Watch videos about UEFI and Grub and partitioning and kernel modules: and all the other topics that have headings in the manual (which you'll of course read!).
Arch is a Regular distro but crippled
There are plenty of videos and articlds about installing Arch which properly cover partitioning, filesystems and the bootloader, among other Ermano Ferrari his videos. I do agree that this is the biggest hurdle for people who struggle with installing Arch. Not the only one but the most problematic one. Nothing is difficult about it but you do need to spend some time on learning a few things, about that but also for example about your hosts-file, about which packages you need for essential features like sound, what chrooting is (when you need to do that to recover your system. Simple things but it takes a bit of time if it is new to you. One little example of a mistake which I made in the past: I made the users config-directory as root-user, planning to later change the permissions, the consequence was that I had no audio at first because PulseAudio couldn't do what was required (permission-issue?).
@@fabricio4794how so?
How to install pycharm-community (classic) on Arch Linux ? Is it possible to manage via snap on Arch Linux ?
Can probably install it using yay which installs directly from the AUR
@@BoofenerIt’s on pacman called pycharm-community-edition
I wonder how many "I use arch btw" users actually did a full manual install themselves
16:07 for later reference
Yeah no. There is a new version and it is quite an often thing. Saying there is no new version of arch suggests to people that a downloaded iso is up to date constantly and can be kept to install from for prolonged time. Which isnt true, Arch provides updated ISO very often and failure to use the newest version may result in user installing unusable system plagued by all the keyring bs
Could you please install on a Asus Rog Strix laptop? 😊
why not?
@@Jelly420 what I actually meant was, will they use a laptop such as the Asus Rog Strix
@@chilligarcia6854 From what I have observed, Tom usually tests distros in a virtual machine, only installing on bare metal hardware in special cases or for clients
Your volume is lower than others
🎉
Arch is cool and all but I prefer debian based systems 😐😂
i hate the older packages.
Debian has its cool things like dpkg but those are mostly usefull on servers.
for a desktop i would 100% use a rolling release
I thought that, then I realised that the version of neovim in the apt repos is ancient and for some reason it doesn't appear to be backported. Which means I can't have lunarvim on debian, which is seriously making me think I need something more bleeding edge.
I wish Debian is as cool as Arch.
"easy" 24min video to install lool
The text installer is pointless in a modern distro that has a GUI. It's like having a modern car with hand crank starting.
its not useless, you can tweak some things that arent possible with archinstall.
@@bacalhau_seco Let's meet in the middle and have a choice of both ways.
@@OpenBASED what
@@bacalhau_seco Never mind...
I can't wait for the day when the KDE developers disable the bouncy cursor. It's so irritating.
go to acessibility settings and disable it yourself
@@bacalhau_seco I appreciate your help, but what I mean the regular spanning cursor, as far as I know it's not available.
@@islam-karam oh think ik what u mean, the bouncy icon when u open an app?
if so you can disable it or change it, im not sure about the path to get there but it might be in desktop effects. (im not sure)
but you can definitly disable it
@@bacalhau_seco Thank you so much, I will consider trying KDE 6.1 and see if the experience getting better than 5 version.
@@islam-karam so much better
defeats the point of the DIY distribution
arch isnt DIY...
This isn't gentoo kiddo lmao God forbid people have options on how they want to install the distro that gives you options
@@Boofener weird how people actually believe arch is diy just because it doesn't come preconfigured.
"This is not a Gentoo video".
Arch is just another"Over hyped "linux regular distro,a lot of people inside linux bubble hate this small group,it same problem with GNU/cult years before,when Arch be forgotten,some wacko joes from Canada or USA s basements will build another distro hype and say"i use(instert distro) by the way"...
Arch is one of the only three distributions that actually matter.
its a good tutorial,but im not will join the Arch cult,because its a regular distro that does not"operate Miracles",like Running Full Windows apps without wine or another "mambo jambo gumble"like this,so good luck for new Arch cult sheeps....
Maybe its me...but this is just a bit too much for a Linux install I much prefer OpenSuSE and Fedora..not as complicated..and SuSE is an industry standard in the server world...so yeah...but its nice to play around with I guess...