I've installed ArchLinux on 3 desktops so far, and I've done them successfully, so I must have *RTFM* , I was just wondering why is it hard to configure wifi. Since I failed to configure wifi with wpa_supplicant. I'll try with wifi-menu today, and report progress. No need to be so aggressive man. On 07/24/2017 01:48 PM, Robert Wong via arch-general wrote: > A general Arch installation is nothing but a minimal set > of GNU/Linux system with a package manager, which > can be configured into anything. I'm not going any > further for you have made yourself clear that you > haven't done your research. Offensive as it can be, I'd > say *RTFM*. > > PS: It's apparently navie to say sth like Arch is nothing > but a desktop for archlinux.org itself runs on Arch Linux. > > > RW > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: Why there is no NetworkManager in ArchISO > From: Junayeed Ahnaf via arch-general > To: arch-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > CC: Junayeed Ahnaf > > All fine and good but I don't see arch being installed on something > other than desktop/laptop. Of course there are niche cases as arch > server I do not doubt but how much of arch install base is traditional > desktop? I think it's rather high. > > > On 07/24/2017 01:30 PM, ITwrx.org wrote: >> On 07/24/2017 12:30 AM, Junayeed Ahnaf via arch-general wrote: >>> Why is there no NetworkManager in ArchISO? >> Arch Linux is not like desktop focused distributions. Therefore, it's >> ISO does not come with "everything but the kitchen sink" where you have >> a turn-key desktop after running a GUI installer or install script. It >> has the base set of software you need to assemble what you need for your >> given install target. >> >>> Isn't it widely accepted as >>> the go to method of connecting to internet in Linux? >> No, not in general like that. Network manager is primarily used for >> network management with desktop environments, most commonly Gnome, as >> the other respondent noted. Arch Linux is used in many different ways, >> not only for the desktop. >> >>> Is there any reason >>> for it not to be default? >> The defaults for the ISO would generally be the simpler options, and >> less likely to be something large with a lot of dependencies. Also, >> minimalist ISOs were the norm rather than the exception in years past >> and for Reasons. They still are in some cases or with some distros. >> Also, there are not always application defaults with Arch Linux like you >> might have with a desktop distro. Arch is "DIY/build your own and choose >> your own defaults (for the most part)" type of distro.
