Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: Suggestion for .iso... (Read 764 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Suggestion for .iso...

Encoutering some troubles with installation on XFS filesystem, I would propose to the Artix team to make a specific iso just for this file system using another boot loader than GRUB. The normal.mod issue is quite known, so if the GRUB team won't fix it, maybe a solution could be an iso with rEFInd or something else that is compatible with XFS.
Is it possible?

Re: Suggestion for .iso...

Reply #1 –
No, we already provide far too many DE flavors and init combinations; other distros offer only 1. Just select xfs in calamares and use a live ISO after installation to switch to another bootloader.

Re: Suggestion for .iso...

Reply #2 –
It does not makes any sense. Changing the bootloader after installation do not avoid partitioning the ssd in strange manner just for starting xfs. The problem is before installation, not after.

Re: Suggestion for .iso...

Reply #3 –
If you need something that specific, just use CLI-based installation method
ARMtix

Re: Suggestion for .iso...

Reply #4 –
Does the cli-based iso offer alternatives to grub?

Re: Suggestion for .iso...

Reply #5 –
Quote from: Artico – on
Does the cli-based iso offer alternatives to grub?
Have you ever installed Arch? The base ISO works pretty much the same as the default Arch one.
Not only can you choose an alternative bootloader, you can even install a non-linux kernel if you really want to ;)

So the answer to your question is: it doesn't offer an alternative directly, it's just that you're not forced to install grub. For example, you can use something from the AUR

Re: Suggestion for .iso...

Reply #7 –
You can do the cli installation from a live ISO.
I find useful to have all these apps and no need to download and prepare another image.
With ventoy it's easy although.

Re: Suggestion for .iso...

Reply #8 –
Quote from: MaxLPM – on
Quote from: Artico – on
Does the cli-based iso offer alternatives to grub?
Have you ever installed Arch?

Not in the classic manner. I tried to install Artix with cli-based but not so much time to dedicate (my job as nothing to do with the computer world)
Anyway, I still think that this needs to be simplified, because no official docs talk about this issue. I can just find (a lot of) threads on differents forums and just because other people had the same problem. So, just for that, I'm wondering why this couldn't be fixed in another way. Where's the KISS philosophy?
 

Re: Suggestion for .iso...

Reply #9 –
There's literally nothing more KISS than the base iso. Install whatever you want and you're done. Simple.

Re: Suggestion for .iso...

Reply #10 –
Quote from: Dudemanguy – on
There's literally nothing more KISS than the base iso. Install whatever you want and you're done. Simple.

So why Calamares if KISS is meant to be cli-based? Maybe there's a mess with words: say "simple" is a thing; say "thin" is another.
People more involved in the computer world than a normal pc user or, like me, more curious to understand how a system works (but always a normal user), are not able to understand the point of view of us, normal user or little more. We don't have a technical backgound knowledge, we have life involved in other thing and we will never have so much disposition to study or dedicate too much time to this.
In my case, I like having interest in technical stuff, I read a lot, I try functions and get my hands dirty in the system,  but my time and abilities are too little. What brings me in Artix/Arch world is just because I need a very responsive machine for music purpose  (and after a distro hopping period, I find Arch very stable, being a EndeavourOS user) and not for some strange programming experiments.

So, coming back to the point and living out the creation of a new iso... why an issue like that couldn't be solved to have a correct installation of xfs since the beginning? I spent a lot of days to find a solution and I tried different partition configuration before understanding how it would be to run xfs properly. It's a waste of time, nothing more.
What's the reasons this couldn't be solved?

Re: Suggestion for .iso...

Reply #11 –
Quote
we have life involved in other thing and we will never have so much disposition to study or dedicate too much time to this.
Guess what, we, tech people, also have life involved in other things and outside of IT in general. Crazy, right? ;)
Quote
spent a lot of days to find a solution and I tried different partition configuration before understanding how it would be to run xfs properly. It's a waste of time, nothing more.
Hear me out on this one...
Since you've already figured out how to make xfs work, why don't you... document your findings and, in turn, help others? Not only can you ask for an account on the Artix wiki, there are multiple others that would appreciate your contribution! That way you can turn the "time waste" into something that will be helpful for others!

And, lastly, I recommend that you read this:
https://unixdigest.com/articles/when-you-use-open-source-software-you-are-not-entitled-to-anything.html

PS: sorry, I hope you don't take this post the wrong way, I'm not trying to scare you away from being curious in computers and stuff. The opposite, actually. It's just that creating a new ISO would take a lot of work, and even more to maintain it. If you can and want to help, why not create one yourself? :)

Re: Suggestion for .iso...

Reply #12 –
Quote
Guess what, we, tech people, also have life involved in other things and outside of IT in general. Crazy, right? ;)

You exactly answer to my expectations! That's why I said that people involved in IT can't understand normal user.
About your life involved in other things outside IT, you gave to yourself the answer: what is outside of IT in general for you, is a surplus.
For people like me, IT is the surplus, not matter of everyday! My job is not staying all day on a chair in front of a pc, I work in the healtcare with old people, running everyday from right to left, up and down for emergences, and when time permit it, I spent a lot of time to understand the computer world and sometimes it's a miracle that I can find forces to try to understand all by my self things that I never faced before.

Quote
Since you've already figured out how to make xfs work, why don't you... document your findings and, in turn, help others? Not only can you ask for an account on the Artix wiki, there are multiple others that would appreciate your contribution! That way you can turn the "time waste" into something that will be helpful for others!

This is the top of my expectations...
If you read what I wrote (since the title of this thread and the quality of my question that is obviously very nooby),  you can understand by yourself that I'm not able and I discovered anything else than the normal.mod (known) issue. I would but I'm still learning, and my way to learn is very fragmentary.
Indeed, I never said "You MUST to change the iso" but I simply said "I'm wondering why an already known issue that also the official documentation don't talk about couldn't be solved changing the bootloader (or adding another bootloader next to grub) during installation. What I thought is adding it to the iso.

Quote
PS: sorry, I hope you don't take this post the wrong way, I'm not trying to scare you away from being curious in computers and stuff. The opposite, actually. It's just that creating a new ISO would take a lot of work, and even more to maintain it. If you can and want to help, why not create one yourself? :)

This way won't works to obtain the opposite results. Simply, next time explain the pros and cons of the things, so people could accindentally find this topic using a search engine if need explanations about something.

Quote
And, lastly, I recommend that you read this:
https://unixdigest.com/articles/when-you-use-open-source-software-you-are-not-entitled-to-anything.html

For the things said above, this is out of place.
Indeed, I want to remember, the title of this thread start with the word "Suggestion... ".
I don't ask for warranty or strange things, just try to find a solution for an issue quite akward to solve if there's no guideline to do it.

Re: Suggestion for .iso...

Reply #14 –
Just posting this for a little discovery...
I installed a couple of debian-based distros just to try  (MX and BunsenLabs). On this two, the xfs issue seems to be solved. There's no need to make any ext4 partition to make work xsf. Installation process just use fat32 for boot and xfs when choosen from the gui menu.
Don't want to re-open what could be see by someone as a futile controversy, butjust for completeness of information.