Archlinux decides not to include the AIF installer

A new installation image of Arch Linux 2012.07.15 where the new policy of Arch regarding the system facilities.

The developers of this distro have decided not to include the installer Aif (Arch Installation Framework), which will make users who are not familiar with this distribution, or come from other distributions more intended for the home user and systems such as Windows o Mac Os, it is very hard for them to install it, since from now on the installation will be completely through the terminal.

Anyway, on the wiki they have posted a small installation guide of the new system image, although for now it is in English, it will surely be translated into several languages ​​soon. Maybe soon I will publish a small tutorial on how to install the system with the new image.

The content of the article adheres to our principles of editorial ethics. To report an error click here!.

60 comments, leave yours

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked with *



  1. Responsible for the data: Miguel Ángel Gatón
  2. Purpose of the data: Control SPAM, comment management.
  3. Legitimation: Your consent
  4. Communication of the data: The data will not be communicated to third parties except by legal obligation.
  5. Data storage: Database hosted by Occentus Networks (EU)
  6. Rights: At any time you can limit, recover and delete your information.

  1.   shadow said

    The decision appears to be due to the lack of maintenance and contributions to the development of the AIF. What is clear is that this further distances Arch from novice users and brings it closer to all those interested in learning how to build a system from scratch 😉

  2.   Francis said

    I do not understand why they have made this decision so * luminaries *.

  3.   Luis said

    I've never tried ArchLinux, although I've been wanting for a while. For me this change, far from intimidating me, makes installing Arch more attractive, I love the terminal and the intellectual challenges. What I'm wondering is whether this change has a technical reason, or is it simply a political decision, a way to ensure that "only" advanced Linux users can use Arch.

  4.   Elynx said

    Well for me when removing said installer they took away the grace that said distro had, since said installer scared many hehehe xD !. [Joke] 😛


  5.   Manual of the Source said

    They have also removed the different ISOs that were on the download page and now there is only one with dual architecture and network installation.

    1.    Blazek said

      Right, and it is one of the things that I have liked the least, since they force you to download a larger image than before.

      1.    Manual of the Source said

        And it goes against Arch's philosophy of not having anything you don't need. Why force me to download and record a dual image if I know beforehand that I am only going to use the 32-bit image?

  6.   croto said

    With the completeness of the WIKI, there is no problem with ARCH, what's more, due to its large community, any fear should be lost. Likewise, full 2012 the boys could have put on and made it more accessible. And there are points of the installation, such as manually writing the groups, it is already given to me not from PRO but from IDIOT. If you want them to put sudoku's in the different installation STEPs and if they are not solved in 5 minutes, you have to do everything again. It's one thing to learn and another to waste my time.

    1.    Oberost said

      "It's one thing to learn and another to waste my time."

      Amen brother. +1

  7.   javichu said

    Where can I download the previous version? So I install it with AIF and then update the system. The news has annoyed me, I had planned to install it in August. I'm not a newbie to linux, but I like comfortable installers like Debian

    1.    Blazek said

      Well, sadly, you won't be able to download a previous image from Arch's official page, since all the previous images have been removed from the servers and only the new snapshot has been made available.

    2.    Blazek said

      Sadly, you won't find previous images on Arch's official servers, as they have been removed. Anyway, I don't think your plan is a very good idea since changes have been made in the package signatures and in the directory structure and the update would be very long and could have bugs.

    3.    VisitntX said

      Blazek is right, the last time I installed it a little over a month ago it was a headache due to the signing of the packages and the change in the systemd that when adding the everything under build it would conflict. There were thus several sticking points between the old installer and the current changes. The good thing now is that they will release versions every week, therefore several of these problems will be avoided.

      1.    xykyz said

        I also installed it with the old iso and it certainly gave problems, with conflicts more than anything. With packet signing, the biggest problem was generating enough entropy to generate a key, which took a bit of time ...

  8.   msx said

    The installer worked quite well in most cases, but the new two- or three-script-based install system is far better:
    1. If you have a basic idea of ​​GNU / Linux, it will be very easy to install the distro following the few cases described in the wiki.
    2. If you are not a technical user of GNU / Linux, you will not install Arch, you will install Fedora or Ubuntu or Mageia or any other distro that is completely graphical.
    3. The advantage of the new system is that now the installation not only allows you to configure the system but also _install_ absolutely everything you need in the same step so that when you do the first boot you already have your system fully installed and working - remember that With the AIF framework, a minimum base was installed on which, after restarting, the system was armed.

    Arch is one of the easiest GNU / Linux that exists, I call it Linux for lazy people, because everything works so well, without problems, the configuration is simple and transparent, you install only the packages you want without having to install 45 additional packages ... really once you learn the way Arch does everything, it is very likely that you will not have jitters in your system for a long time and, if something happens, it is extremely easy to fix it because nothing is hidden or automagic, it is really a system for wagons who don't want to waste a lot of time managing it: you install it once and forget to touch it again.

    Now, if you want a distro that allows you even finer control of the system - even finer than using ABS on Arch Linux - I recommend Funtoo, the 'new' project from Daniel Robbins, founder of Gentoo Linux; Funtoo is fantastic, if it weren't that I already handle Arch so well and enjoy using the distro I sure adopted Funtoo, an incredible distro.

    1.    Manual of the Source said

      What's so special about Funtoo?

      1.    msx said

        It's fucking awesome, when you have time I read their wiki and the articles related to the new Portage, Metro and their improved emerge, if I had a more powerful machine instead of my i5 first gen, something like an i7 third gen, I would possibly migrate my notebook to Funtoo since compiling packages with such a beast is hardly felt.

        1.    Manual of the Source said

          Well, it looks interesting. I've been curious to try Gentoo for a long time, but I think I'll try Funtoo instead. Let's see if I give myself a space in the December holidays.

  9.   vicky said

    What a decision of m @. Not only that they changed the way to install something more difficult for the common user. But now it's just netinstall !! I was never able to connect to the Internet when I tried to install with the netinstall image, no matter how hard I tried. I guess this is my final goodbye to Arch. It's good that I happen to chakra to be honest, now the archlinux developers cause me a little of rejection, they were always a bit elitist.

    1.    Blazek said

      They are not elitists, they only follow their philosophy of the KISS principle, keeping the system as simple as possible avoiding any convoluted steps that badly get the user used.

      1.    vicky said

        I already know that, I have used arch for more or less 1 year, they are elitist in the sense that when you go to ask something in the forums, they treat you half badly, or ignorant if you do not know certain things, or they directly tell you go to read the wiki even if your question or problem is not there.

        1.    msx said

          I say with you @vicky: they can treat you badly if you ask some obvious nonsense that you could have solved by googling for 2 minutes or searching the wiki: in fact it is considered rude by experienced users to ask obvious questions whose answer is something chewed and predigested.

          On the contrary it is a _totally_ different case that you ask when you really cannot solve your problem.
          If your post reads: «I have this problem, on the wiki they speak far above this and the indications they give do not solve it -by the way the indications are: such, such and such and I did this, that and this other- and Googling I found two posts on X forums from people with the same problem that couldn't solve it either, any ideas? »
          I assure you that I have seen posts with more than 25 responses, when they deserve it.

          Now if you write: «what is a loop device? Can someone help me to mount an ISO image? Grax! » they will surely ignore you completely.

          You have to understand that Arch is a dedicated distro for those of us who like to understand what happens with the system and who are seduced by problems when they are interesting or present a certain logic, we all have a debugger child inside us, on the contrary questions that can be Self-answered are typical of other types of forums of other distributions.

          You complain about Arch but in the Gentoo forums or Debian itself, if you ask a stupid question they ban you and all your descendants xD

    2.    JP (@edconocerte) said

      Hahahaha and I was left with the desire to install the graphical environment.
      Using virtualbox I was able to install the base system a month ago and have not touched ArchLinux again.
      I think that now (without AIF) the configuration for new users will be complicated.
      For now, then I will give myself time to finish installing the graphical environment. I still can't decide which… recommendations? > _ <!

      1.    Blazek said

        I recommend xfce4 as the first option, if it doesn't convince you, then I recommend KDE, since it is currently the most complete environment, although also heavier.

        1.    msx said

          Seeing that @Blazek, I recommend KDE SC with all the chiches on (except Strigi that you can leave off), if you are looking for something lighter you can turn off all the visual effects of KDE and I assure you that it will be luxurious; if what you are looking for is something really light but functional Xfce 4.10 is the best you will find.

      2.    diegogabrieldiego said

        To install the graphical environment you do not need AIF ... !! I recommend Openbox that continues with the KISS philosophy if you want something more colorful as Compiz-Standalone.

  10.   elip89 said

    Well I will miss AIF but I imagine that if the Arch developers decided to eliminate it it was for the better: S also now as the image is netinstall it downloads all the updated packages. For those who need a quick tutorial because the wiki is long, here I leave this one that I found on the net I tried it and it works excellent, it did not give me any problem during the installation


  11.   Cristian said

    Goodbye Arch !!!

  12.   Mauritius said

    And just that I have to reinstall my Arch, and I don't have much time, this happens (for some strange reason I broke it when I installed Grub2, then I did a quick core installation with an old ISO and could not update). I'm going to have to print out the Wiki and pray that netinstall doesn't give me trouble with the Wireless driver (which it always did). Just in case I'm going to have the Sabayon ISO at hand, I'm short on time, I need the PC to work and not to test new methods. I try it once, if it doesn't work I go with an Out of the Box.

  13.   Andros said

    Simply: very bad.

  14.   Francisco Mora (@_franciscomora) said

    It seems like a good idea to me, the .iso image with AIF was already giving me problems, besides that everything is by terminal I think is excellent, more control over what I do ..

    You can find another very good tutorial on the new installation at:


  15.   Gregory Swords said

    Don't be afraid of the new way to install ArchLinux! On the contrary, it is more enriching. I invite you to read my new step-by-step installation tutorial in spanish:

    Live ArchLinux!

    1.    elav <° Linux said

      Excellent friend .. you showed off ..

      1.    Gregory Swords said

        Thanks brother!

    2.    Diego said

      Thank you ! , Contribution.

      1.    Gregory Swords said

        Thanks to you for reading the tutorial 🙂

    3.    Blazek said

      Great tutorial, very well explained as always, thank you very much.

      1.    Gregory Swords said

        Thanks for your words! Greetings 🙂

    4.    wpgabriel said

      exactly, for me it always had to be like that arch.

    5.    xykyz said

      Install arch thanks to your previous tutorial and now I just did it in a virtual machine thanks to this new tutorial. You're my idol! xD

      Comment that a few days ago I installed gentoo and now the arch installation is quite similar in some stages (also much simpler and faster, that you do not have to compile kernel or anything). I found it much easier without AIF than with it, so it's a great change!

      1.    Blazek said

        It is true, the Arch installation gives an air of gentoo, except when compiling the kernel and the other system components. Honestly, a user with experience in Linux "Console" can install Arch easily, however those who do not use the console at all have to dedicate more time to do it.

      2.    Gregory Swords said

        Hahaha, thank you very much for that. Hello!

  16.   electron222ruko22 said

    xD is a matter of taste, but users should already lose their fear of the terminal, and the wiki is very easy to follow and I learned many things that I did not know 😀

  17.   pardygm said

    I don't know how it will be but now you can say that installing Arch is difficult

    1.    pardygm said

      I half read the guide, it seems very easy to install it, of course if it was as they paint it

  18.   Josh said

    Very good article. I could never install the version with AIF and I tried many times documenting all the steps and comparing them with the wiki, now it seems more complicated. Probe Bridge Linux and Nosonja Linux, it seems that is the closest I will get to Archlinux. I think I can never get my hands on this distro.

  19.   milky28 said

    archlinux is easy to install it is not complicated at all if you have used ubuntu it is the same the only thing that the installation is from the terminal in a cli way, so it is not a problem, the only thing perhaps are the configuration files that are also in the wiki They explain very well how to do it, but in the end there is a somewhat personalized distro and I know the need to use less package.

  20.   Mehizuke Nueno said

    In case the AIF looked very spartan, the fact that they took it away more than a KISS principle I see as a bad move since by using the AIF many more minutes were not lost than would be lost installing the new version, Unfortunately (or fortunately) I have not been able to test this installation because I just reinstalled my arch a few days ago (with that / lib update) and we will see in the future how it will end, hopefully for the better.

  21.   Archimedes said

    I don't know if it will be very correct because I am new to Archlinux, but due to the problems with the glibc update, I did a reinstallation from the ISO image through the internet, in order to have the updated packages. In this way I had the update of pacman and glibc.
    In this way you could continue using the AIF installer, right? at the moment I have no problem when updating.

  22.   genesis vargas said

    if before it was a complicate imagine now. but what I'm sure of is that if they made that change the distro will be more robust. I think so (I say by the commands)

  23.   msx said

    The one that says that installing by AIF or console is complicated is the same one that says that installing Gentoo is complicated: NO, IT'S NOT COMPLICATED! It's really easy when you know what you are doing!

    Complicated is another thing: something complicated is something that although we know very well what we do becomes difficult or cumbersome, that is complicated, use the language well, mecacho> :(

    If you don't have knowledge, don't say "it's difficult" or "nooo, that's complicated", just say: DON'T KNOW, from the moment you recognize that you don't know, you can start READING the wiki or tutorials on the subject and get upset - yes people, it's question of reading and not Forward, Forward, Accept, Forward, Forward, Finish.

    No to being afraid to say NO I KNOW, nobody was born knowing, it is a matter of sitting down and studying!

  24.   Alf said

    The complicated thing is, that it does not give you any error message, but it does not install.

  25.   Malayat said

    one more step in learning ... to try it has been said

  26.   pipe said

    The really interesting thing about Arch is its installation process, because it learns. The rest of this distribution does not interest me. I prefer Debian Testing.

  27.   pipe said

    The most interesting thing about Arch is its installation process, because it is learned, the rest does not interest me. I prefer Debian Testing.

  28.   Diego said

    The most interesting thing about Arch is its installation process. The rest does not interest me.

  29.   Husband said

    Although I do not use Arch ... the times I installed it it was 40% automatic installation and the rest, using the keyboard and following commands to edit ... I do not see it as something so serious to remove the installer, it is only a matter of formatting, copying the kernel, edit some conf, grub and restart ... they are adapting to those of us who install gentoo, which do exactly the same, only taking a lot longer to compile. To save time in the installation we usually use a live cd ... copy commands from the manual and paste in the console so as not to write so much. I hope the Archers can do this too.

  30.   Mehizuke Nueno said

    Well, I see the process more cumbersome, I really like it more with AIF, now with respect to having the system ready in 2 steps I don't think so (referring to the msx post in point 3) because from the selection of packages you can install it (Obviously installing from the network, either with the netinstall version or selecting the source in one of the arch servers) and from there activate [extra] and select the packages that one needs, once the installation of them is finished because only the necessary files were modified and that's it.

    But anyway it's past tense

  31.   Algave said

    I was more familiar with the old installer but was still able to install it 🙂

  32.   sny said

    Well, cfdisk does not work for me, it does not recognize the 2 disks that I have xD