[artix-general] Things that push me away from Artix [Feaures/Improvements requests]

[a8]

On Friday, July 4th, 2025 at 11:31 PM, Ruben Safir <ruben at mrbrklyn.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Jul 04, 2025 at 05:46:27PM +0000, a8 wrote:
>
> > this was suggested in irc
> >
> > if a singular artix iso supported persistence,
>
>
> Honestly, I don't know what that means.

30 second summary https://archbang.org/2021/02/07/persistence-in-a-live-iso-is-it-really-worth-it/
"In the old days of live isos such as Knoppix ran mostly from cd drives. These days most people will run from a usb drive in some form. Archiso has an option to allow persistence, this means anything done in a session will be saved to a named device. Simply at boot menu hit tab and add ‘cow_device=/dev/sdxN’ (x is used an example and N is a partition number). Once booted you can modify most of the systems settings including install packages (subject to a working network connection).

This is all fine but does have a few drawbacks. You cannot fully update a live system, more to the point you cannot update kernel. You may notice a longer boot time given loading of persistence folder/drive. Have noticed that if I run a newer version of iso current persistence files are not loaded. "

But, as noted above, install artix to the USB is probably a smarter solution.

https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Install_Arch_Linux_on_a_removable_medium

> As far as I am concern, the real problem here is that Calemere is not a
> dependable platform.
>
> I've looks at over a 100 installations already, probably a lot more,
> and the damn thing just fails to work without seeming reason ... like
> all the time. And it is not an Artix controlled program.

I agree. The Calamares fail/win numbers are weird. 
If I try install encrypted btrfs and it fails, then I try a strait btrfs, and it fails, and I fall back to a basic ext4 in frustration, and it succeeds, is that a 2/3 fail rate, or a success?

> > then that one iso could be updated and modifyed to the users desired init, de, and other packages.
>
> A base install does just that... fwiw. I have had no trouble with
> installing DMs with pacman.

Agreed. But the boot iso doing the install cannot be modified by pacman, right?