You're viewing a single thread.
I needed to quickly get something up and running on a laptop so that I could take it in the field. I thought about reinstalling arch for a minute but decided to go with Ubuntu. And you know what? It was good enough. The install was easy peasy, and everything just worked right out of the box. If I was setting up a long term machine I'd probably go with arch, but just to get some shit done on a timeline? Yeah, turned out Ubuntu was good enough.
too many possible things can go wrong with installers, with arch I know I'll get it working faster if even the slightest issue occurs which would otherwise derail installer distros 🤷♂️
In roughly 7 years of Linux, I think I've only run into issues with automated installers in partitioning if you choose to just go automatic everything and you have a wacky existing partition layout.
In roughly 30 linux of Linux I've seen a lot more than partitioning go wrong in automated installers.
idk man I've been using linux since before we began recording the passage of time and automated installers are, you know... fine? There can be issues, sure, but its pretty damn rare on modern hardware that they aren't the result of a config issue which can be sorted out in the bios (or similar). This is the Arch elitism that everyone complains about; just because something is easy doesn't mean that it's somehow bad.
Doesn't have to be Arch, as long as I can do the commands by hand instead of trusting whoever built the installer. I used Gentoo many years ago as well for the same reasons.
Distros like Arch simply make doing that very accessible when you are so intimately familiar with the process that an installer feels more like an obstacle than doing it yourself does.
Nothing against those that lack the experience, the familiarity, or simply find doing it that way takes too much of their energy.
I suppose hoping for introspection was a tad foolish on my part. Ah well.
Don't worry you'll figure out introspection eventually. 😉
... "no u"?
Seriously though, cliche flaming aside, why did you come into this with such hostility? The initial poster was just talking about a situation where ubuntu is clearly the preferable option - installing an OS with the minimum of time invested. What does it accomplish, coming in and talking at length about why actually Arch is the best choice in this case but only if you're skilled enough? The initial call out for elitism wasn't based on it being about Arch, though Arch very much attracts people who say things like this, it's based on you quite literally derailing the conversation to talk about how good you are with the software. I doubt you intended it to be interpreted like that, but it comes across so smug and self-centered that it's almost painful to read. That is the introspection I was hoping for, that your comments are not read in the manner you intend.
I have been using Linux for a long time. I have installed many distributions, many different distributions. I can't say I have ever had a problem with installers except:
- Unsupported hardware, especially in kernel versions 2.4.*
- Non-free wifi on Debian on laptops
- Less than ideal partitioning on automatic, so I haven't let it auto partition much since red hat in the 2000s. I let Mint auto partition my wife's machine recently and that went fine.
Do you have super odd hardware? Do your computers lie to the installer about present hardware?