Is archbang a viable option?

So I have just tried installing normal arch, in many different ways each one presenting me with a new error.

I tried the dirty method and I got filesystem is write protected.

I tried another and Xorg wouldn't start due to not been able to get catalyst drivers.

I finally get KDE up and running (As I find it easiest to begin with) and I cant connect to the internet.

So I know Archbang is a very simple setup of Arch, I know some tweaking must be done in order to get it working correctly.

But other versions such as Manjaro do not work correctly, they don't seem to write to my SSD properly if not that GRUB does not install correctly.

Ah the teething troubles of installing Linux :)

So which would be better? solve the issues I have or go for Archbang and install the repos etc?


What were the specific errors you were having with the Dirty method?

Grub isn't near as good with Arch as Syslinux/Gummiboot are.

One piece of advice with Manjaro (I've mentioned that before on the forum): use the CLI installer, it's easy to use, and not as ambiguous as the GUI installer. The new version 0.8.8 should have a better installer though, the previous GUI installer was borrowed from Mint, and it was just crap.

If you use the CLI installer, everything will install just fine.

I do have to agree that GRUB is not the best thing ever, GRUB2 is much better.

Archbang is not that viable anymore, the lead developers left the Archbang project to start the Manjaro project a couple of years ago...

when I try to mkfs.vfat -s -F32 it says that the GPT table is write protected, I cant get the exact details as im not at my PC currently.

I tried the CLI version with Manjaro and it still did same, when it finally stuck on my system i tried to install GPU drivers it failed I rebooted and then couldnt launch xorg due to no screens.


post dmesg output after boot, it's very hard to guess what's going wrong.

I'm gonna agree with Zoltan on that one.

Give Manjarobox a shot as well, they have a release candidate out (RC2 or 3 at this point?) right now that has a better installer than the one in the current official version. I believe they also have a wiki page on how to install to SSDs.

I have to look at Manjaro again, I haven't had time to follow up on it, did they miss the release of their new GUI installer with 0.8.8?

I really like the CLI installer, it's unambiguous in comparison. In my opinion, GUI installers are the Achilles heel of many distros. The only GUI installer I really like is the OpenSuSE one, it's pretty clear and fast, and has more options, and everything is in the right place. Even Fedora doesn't seem to attach that much importance to the development of Anaconda, even though it's nice and minimal and very fast. With every new release, there seems to be a blocking bug left in Anaconda and FedUp, with really elementary stuff, like forgetting to include non-US keyboard support, or forgetting to include RAID-support.

I can understand that most linux devs do not use a GUI installer or an automatic update tool, but frankly, I do if those work well, because it saves a lot of time and research.

I shall when Im back home :) may just install manjaro and tweak it tho as its less hastle

I would recommend Antergos if you're looking for an easy to install Arch, i've had problems with UEFI and manjaro myself, also with Catalyst and manjaro because of the power Xpress support. Also note that manjaro is only based on arch, and you do benefit from the AUR but their official repository is different, which is not really a bad thing, but just a thing to note.