Not necessarily…but you could also say wasted effort because so many arch derivatives have already been there.
AND
It could possibly reduce the need for the arch derivatives? Heavens!
OR
You could make the case that they could better spend the man hours on infrastructure things (if there are any needs?)
Blablablablablablabla
1 Like
They take great pride in how minimal an Arch ISO is, and it is one of the few setups where you can boot to a non-GUI terminal and do the install (I think Debian’s netinstall is the only other big one). Of course, I could never get my Wifi to work with the Arch ISO image but at least it worked over Ethernet.
Even if they did move to a graphical environment (which would probably help with the WiFi) I’d like to see them keep the TUI installer, just because the image is so frigging small. Besides, really, EOS does do the GUI install environment better anyway.
I see the benefit for sure, but at the same time I don’t think those who do manual Arch installs (I have BTW) will really care. I see it as a half measure between manual and a full graphical installer that solves very little and has little value. I would say leave it as is or do a full on installer.
It’s probably a moot point, it will take months of bickering just to decide on what graphical environment to use. 
Aaand they are working on a web based GUI installer too…
I am probably missing the point here, but what is the benefit of a gui installer?
The iso already has the archiinstall script aboard, and this does the job just fine.
1 Like
If this were any distro but Arch, I’d say…but it’s not pretty ?
That is what we are discussing here. You are not the only one who is confused.
The last commit was done two years ago though.
I guess it was more or less just some experiment and he went on with the archinstall TUI instead.
3 Likes
I hope so
The comments here are making it confusing, but I don’t think a gui installer is even being proposed. What is being proposed(with very little progress), is a graphical environment on the ISO, not a graphical installer.
4 Likes
Yes, sorry, my bad on comprehension about the GUI environment vs a graphical installation.
I guess the benefit would be EndeavourOS? Minus the AUR helper of course because they’re philosophically opposed to them. WHich I kinda get, but again, EndeavourOS. It’s already done, and done extremely well, probably better than they’d do it.
I thyink Arch should stick to it’s mission…it’s a very barebones setup, but it makes a nice canvas to create derivatives, and a challenge for people who want to show off the size of their…terminal. 
Really!! it ok you be fine Endeavouros no judge 
I sure it about what do with terminal that matter . Guess i wrong 
Although, again, they aren’t actually discussing a graphical installer, just a graphical environment.
Isn’t the title of the topic clear enough?
I also provided two resources.
Why are people confused?
3 Likes
I’m not. Even a graphical environment to run the archinstall script kind of gets away from their minimalism philosophy.
A graphical environment on ISO is not just for installing the OS. It has many other uses, as well, the ISO being a complete but portable operating system on a read-only filesystem.
Any decent terminal emulator is much more comfortable to use than a TTY. And it’s nice to be able to have a graphical web browser opened at the same time.
That said, EndeavourOS ISO fills this need well enough, so there is certainly no pressing need for Arch developers to make something like that. Besides, any Arch user who is opposed to using EndeavourOS ISO on some principle (minimalism?) is surely capable of creating his own ISO (or learning how to do it). It’s not at all difficult to do so.
Arch isn’t about comfort, or ease of use, or user friendlyness. The snarky version is that Arch is about the “btw” badge. The realistic version is that Arch is about keeping things simple. Deploying a GUI just to run a terminal would definitely violate first principles for the, yeah. And as you saidf, Endeavor does a good job of that anyway, probably a better job than Arch would end up doing when fighting with their own minimalist influences internally.
This is simply not true, Arch is whatever it’s Devs and Community want it to be.
4 Likes