r/archlinux • u/MothMatron • 16h ago
QUESTION Manual install vs. “Archinstall”
Context: i’m a relatively new arch user and i’ve never used any linux os or distro before now.
Recently i finished setting up my first linux install manually, as a dual-boot system on a laptop with windows and archlinux on separate, discreet physical drives. The arch & kde setup is installed in an lvm inside a luks container with only my efi partition remaining outside, and i made grub my primary boot-manager. Took me a couple days of messing around with it to get everything working, but now it’s totally useable and butter smooth.
My question is the following,
I repaired an old thinkpad w540 a couple weeks ago but it no longer supports windows due to hardware limitations, so i’m gonna put arch on that too. I want a similar set up as my initial installation described above. I recently became aware that theres an “easy-mode” installation program that you can run to have all this shit automate itself onto your hd with minimal user input.
I’m tempted to use that for the sake of saving time, but i’m not clear on whether it offers the same level of control w/ regard to the actual set-up of my drive partitions and logical volume encryption?
Tldr: can i use “archinstall” and still configure my installation such that the filesystem defining my root directory can be installed in an lvm, inside a luks container? I’m a linux newbie, pls be nice 😭
10
u/quipstickle 16h ago
Do it manually. Archinstall is handy if you have installed arch manually before, but overall archinstall SUCKS. It is slow, they make insane decisions like arbitrarily blocking valid usernames, overall it is a poorly maintained and insane pos. I still use it.
2
u/Agreeable_Turnip_261 15h ago
Weird. I find archinstall basically just does exactly what I would have done anyway. It takes me 10 minutes from start to finish.
1
1
u/Synthetic451 12h ago
It's slow? Maybe check the mirrors you're using. Works pretty fast for me and I feel like its been getting better with each release.
2
u/Havatchee 15h ago
Not answering your question but just a polite FYI:
Discreet - Something unobtrusive, hidden, understated, or inconspicuous. The packaging from the vendor was very *discreet***.
Discrete - Something discontinuous, standalone, or in mathematics something countable. The mass of chocolate chips in the recipe is continuous, even though the number of them is *discrete. Or, as in your case: *each operating system was on a *discrete physical drive*.
0
2
u/ang-p 15h ago edited 14h ago
Took me a couple days of messing around with it to get everything working, but now it’s totally useable and butter smooth.
There ain't nowt wrong with that for a first install - esp. for your first encounter with Linux. People who try and "speedrun" an install are the same people that try to come first in a wanking competition.
Besides - while you were "messing around" you are learning how things fitted together, and making decisions on how you wanted them to fit together - while doing some reading and understanding to implement that..
In archinstall you have limited choices, and could do it without reading about
all that shit
and instead simply stabbing at an offered option - with little need to do any reading at all, or know anything....
You took the time to learn - and should something happen, you will have a much better idea of where in the wiki to look (and that includes the installation guide - barring a hardware failure, a non-booting system is basically a system that does not run through the decisions and end results of the steps you took during installation, but really fast -
https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Arch_boot_process
It even has a point where it does its equivalent of chroot. and knowing how far it got gives you an idea where to look...
Now think how easy it would be to diagnose a boot failure if you had simply run archinstall the first time and not taken the time to learn what you did....
As others have commented - people who are totally capable of manually installing arch use archinstall - for all of it's bugs and quirks - but know its limitations and restrictions, and accept them for the convenience of speed on the odd time they want to install and are happy to tweak afterwards if they really need to.
The main thing is that archinstall is a convenience - the "guided installer" is just one baked in profile that happens to be the default is noob friendly and an acceptable base for others simply wishing to save some time on a system they are not too anal about the configuration offered.
Its power is in the fact that it is a tool that you can script to install to your preferences with minimal (or even no interaction - https://github.com/archlinux/archinstall/blob/master/examples/full_automated_installation.py ) - not just a "click-along" - (and yes you can have lvm in luks if you read this far) - for those who can't be bothered to read the docs.
2
u/samas69420 15h ago
you can write your own install script in this way you have the same customization level of a manual installation but also the same ease of use as a installer
2
u/havenoir 15h ago
Archinstall is fine. You should do it manually at least once, but you need to know what you’re doing before you get started. You’ll learn a lot about how Linux systems actually work going through the manual installation process, so I think it’s worth it from that perspective. But if you’re not comfortable with the things you need to do it might be somewhat difficult. But on the other hand, if it ends up being too much, you can always just bag it and go back to archinstall.
2
u/onefish2 16h ago
Try it with archinstall. If it does not work then install it the manual way. You already did it one. You can do it again. Make notes this time with the exact commands used to do the install.
1
u/Double-Hour-2516 15h ago
For people who want to experience purpose, Installer is a savior because it saves a lot of time. For those who want to learn, go for manual
1
u/Serialtorrenter 4h ago
I think this is the most sensible approach. For a first-time Arch installation, reading the Wiki and installing manually is the way to go, because you learn a lot and also learn how to help yourself when you run into issues later. For subsequent installations, Archinstall saves you a lot of hassle.
1
u/FunkyJamma 1h ago
I did manual the first few times but now I just use arch install I recommend the first time to familiarize yourself with the os go manual then if you need to reinstall for whatever reason use the arch install
1
u/archover 15h ago
I can verify archinstall installs fine to LUKS.
Second, archinstall offers an option to let you setup your partitions manually, encrypt them with LUKS, and then indicate which partition will become your /. This has become a favorite option for me.
Currently, archinstall seems to be working fine based on my last use (Aug ISO), although like any software, bugs can arise.
Hope something here helped, and let me know if you need clarification, and good day.
0
u/blubberland01 16h ago
Archinstall is not the official supported way of installing arch even though it is shipped in the iso. Control varies, bugs sometimes appear, mostly it's fine. Most people will tell you to do it yourself, if you want to make sure it's done the way you want it to be.
Personally I haven't found the documentation helpful, when I questioned something.
I use it for setups that don't require anything special at all (ext4, no luks, etc...) and I don't have dualboot setup anywhere. Never tried it, because I don't need it.
Ymmv
7
u/VendorNeutral 16h ago
Archinstall is not the official supported way of installing arch
This is not true, archinstall is fully supported, even on the BBS. The BBS used to have a rule against it, but that was years ago. Half a decade in fact.
https://archlinux.org/news/installation-medium-with-installer/
If you use this installer, do not forget to mention it when asking for support and also to provide the archinstall log, when asked.
1
u/blubberland01 14h ago
Yeah, well.
Supported in case of Arch is just an indicator for its stability, which in my experience is just not of the same quality (mainly for edge cases) as the wiki-followed path for the same configuration.I regret using the verbiage supported, because it's just wrong. But now it's out there.
1
u/ang-p 13h ago edited 12h ago
The profiles are not supported by the distro maintainers - in other words, if you choose a combination offered in the guided profile that doesn't boot, or does not provide what you asked for - it is up to the package authors to disable that combination or fix it - not the maintainers to create a patch for it, despite many newcomers thinking that "arch" is arch so obviously in their eyes, failings in "the installer" are problems for the OS maintainers to fix, when that is not the case.
The fact that archinstall is not even mentioned on the Installation guide is testament to it just being an option - as one of several linked to via the link at the end of the very first paragraph of that page. The talk page note to editors specifically mentions this - i.e. any proposal to add a section on it to the main guide is going nowhere.
As far as the news announcement went,
This addition to the default method of installationmakes it clear what the "default" is.... and the forum post makes it clear that problems arising from the use of it should be directed there, and not in the (default?) "Installation" category - and to include the log since there is a high chance that posters using it do not have the ability to readily answer questions about their config when asked, or supply information that a manual installer may well provide, since they had been working through that particular section at the time - and the log provides the info, and saves everyone's time.
2
u/blubberland01 11h ago
Nothing I said goes against your statement. You just explained in many words my admittedly short wording.
2
u/ang-p 10h ago
I wasn't going against your statement in the slightest - the statement I paraphrased in the opening words -
Warning Shipped profiles are specific to archinstall and not supported by package maintainers. Users are advised to check the details of each profile before using it. clearly states that the profiles are not officially supported by package maintainers, but people can blur the lines in their understanding.
It is totally understandable why people say that "installing arch using the installer" is not supported.
The fact that people get "fully supported" for issues with packages installed from the official repos is a given for pretty much any distro - be they installed manually or via an installer - no matter who wrote it - although anyone that does create their own install script that stops working might get an ear-bashing if the problem is discovered to be their own shonky work.
7
u/SnooCompliments7914 15h ago
To really save time, just do the partition and mkfs manually, then `tar|netcat` your current system over the network.