I'm trying to decide between using Archinstall or installing Arch Linux the traditional way. If the end result is similar, I'd prefer to save time with the installer. However, I know that a manual installation can be a great learning experience as it effectively serves as a tutorial for Arch. I'm also aware that I'll eventually need to refer to the manual at some point. What's the better option here?
4 Answers
You’re right in thinking you'll learn a lot with Arch, so starting with Archinstall could be beneficial. You’ll grasp the basics and understand what you’re installing and how it all works. It’s a great way to kick off your Arch journey!
It really depends on what you want. Archinstall is a script that follows a set path, while a manual install lets you customize everything. Personally, I use Archinstall for quick tests but go manual for more serious setups.
Your reasoning is missing some key points. First off, Arch isn’t a prebuilt distro—you build the system from scratch. Archinstall has predefined variants that don’t cover everything and might not always do it right. Plus, the manual install teaches you how to use arch-chroot, which is vital for future repairs. That’s why I wouldn’t recommend starting with Archinstall.
The end result can be the same or different based on your choices during installation. Archinstall is quicker for certain uses, while a manual install gives you more control over the process.
Related Questions
How To Get Your Domain Unblocked From Facebook
How To Find A String In a Directory of Files Using Linux