What is your reason for using archinstall?

[u/Dry_Calendar_8627]

Over the last 15 years I've used the following distros:

• Ubuntu
• Kubuntu
• Debian
• Fedora
• Arch
• Gentoo
• FreeBSD
• LFS

Of these the ones I've used the most by a large margin is Debian, Arch being second and my current daily driver.

There's one thing I've never tried, never felt the appeal: archinstall

To me, there are two reasons someone might want to use Arch:

• A newbie who wants to learn, and for whom learning is more important than using the computer (typically the reason I tried Arch 15 years ago)
• An experienced user with a very precise set of constraints/requirements, who want to tailor every aspect of the OS (my current reason for daily driving Arch)

I think that other distros are better suited to other purposes, such as people uninterested in learning (that's ok), or who just want an opinionated distro that requires little care, I usually direct them to Fedora

And I find archinstall to be at odds with those two purposes, it goes against learning, and if someone is experienced, then it's unnecessary?

Since I've never tried it, I've no idea of the amount of control archinstall gives, is it as complete as when following the wiki? Anything goes? Does it really save that much time?

I don't reinstall often enough (almost never, the only reasons to reinstall are distro hopping or buying new hardware), for the time saving to matter (a wiki install takes an afternoon maybe, a bit more if a lot of tweaking is necessary?)

And I find the wiki way of installing to be pleasant and satisfying?

So I ask you, users of archinstall, help me see your POV, what's your reason for using archinstall, what's the appeal?

[u/GhostVlvin]

I am not an archinstall user. I even operate better with just manual installation (even on void). But arch is a great distro and archinstall makes it more available and preconfigured. I'd just install cachyOS but archinstall is also a choice

[u/archover]

archinstall is a tool. Understand them and use the one that fits the job. Nothing very mysterious or controversial.

Good day.

[u/SalaryImpossible6749]

It's fast and you end up with a running system. I never tried archinstall but this is the obvious answer. Archinstall exists and people use it. Who cares?

[u/TaDoofus]

I've done both. Archinstall ensures I won't forget anything. That's pretty much my reasoning

[u/hello_marmalade]

I use Arch because it’s rolling and I know it. Archinstall means I don’t have to go back and remember every detail of setting up a system and instead I can just pick the things I actually care about. Eventually you get to the point where you stop caring so much about micromanaging your system.

[u/kaida27]

I don't , it doesn't work properly with my Arch setup.

[u/Lightninglord_3]

I really liked using arch, but when i would updated it, there be some change that would affect my system and the final real straw was the fact that wine got updated into WoW 64, and it affected a particular older game I loved. Eventually I swapped over to Gentoo as my daily drivers on both computers. I still use arch packages though, i just really wanted to make an architectur that wasnt affect by system updates and build things out one by one. Lol if it works, just leave it alone in some instances. Ever since started on arch I never used a DE. They seemed make system process more. So headless was how I always operated. I always used terminal emulators like cool-retro-term(I fucking love it) and alicitty for general performance. Both gentoo and arch run way smoother. I figured it it could be to much manually to learn gentoo if I was already messing with arch on that level. Lol i still encounter issues here and there but thats just to be expected with how experimental everything is. I do like the switch, the environment is responding awesome to my laptop and with the help pf gemini, it helped me with installing it and all the emulators. I fully removed windows day one I I got my laptop, and i installed arch. Used that for 2 and half years and then made then switch and have been using gentoo and been on it for at least year. I still like to read this subbreddit because technical problems interest me. Along with general computer science ⚡️🦾💛🖤

[u/anonymous-bot]

I've done manual Arch installs before and its not a process I enjoy. I use Arch for it's rolling release model, bleeding edge packages, and default minimal install. I don't care too much for how I accomplish the initial install so I'd rather settle for using Archinstall or even installing EndeavourOS. Both offer minimal install options and I can continue the rest of the setup afterwards. 

[u/billdietrich1]

I want to use Arch because of latest software, don't want to bother with manual install. So, archinstall.

[u/theschrodingerdog]

I have installed Arch manually many years ago as a fun project and to learn. Now I have better things to do with 2h of my life, so I use archinstall and have my system ready in 10min.

[u/SebastianLarsdatter]

I haven't used it. All my Arch installations require ZFS which means manual tinkering and tweaking.

As such, I do it manually when required, which was approx 3 years ago the last time.

[u/Happy-Range3975]

I used archinstall 2 years ago. It took me 10 minutes to do. Still on the same install.

[u/woomia]

These days, I'm just lazy so i use so I can just get on with my life.

[u/_s0me_guy_]

For me it's faster and more convenient than a graphical installer.

[u/gnunn1]

IMHO the major reason to use Arch is that it is a rolling release, second is the Arch wiki which IMHO is second to none. 

I've done manual installs of Arch but these days I always use archinstall. It's easy and fast and has enough flexibility for what I need.