I have downloaded 3 versions of Arch but it turns out they are all live versions. One is Ezarch which is not only live but its desktop is unusable with my 1TB hard drive. Presumably a lack of memory.
Are versions from the Arch website all non-live. If not how are their iso’s distinguished.
Thanks
What do you mean non-live distribution? As in, an installed OS on a stick and bootable? You can use 2 sticks, or a stick and a usb ssd, write the iso to the stick and install it on usb. It should be non-live. Or use Tails.
What I mean by non-live is the ability to permanently install to disk. Most distributions give the option for ‘live’ or ‘install’ but not here.
Ezarch takes forever to load into memory what appears to be the total Arch system , but there is no way to install it to disk & I think that maybe that was intended. Nothing on the desktop, which appears otherwise normal will open, seemingly because of low memory issues. The installation here was on dvd.
Why would anyone develop such a useless installation?
Arch gives users the option to pick the components they want, like selecting one’s preferred bootloader. You can’t install it on the same media, but should be doable on any other media. USB to another USB, DVD to USB, USB to SSD etc.
It’s not useless, you have learn how to use it. And no, I don’t use Arch.
I was referring to Ezarch being useless, not Arch!
I believe @dalpets is referring to EZArch as EZArcher.
That’s a strange distro for me. Never seen that before. I do know about EndeavourOS. Maybe that’s something you can try?
I recommend you have a look at this instructions on how to install Arch Linux using an install script. According to DistroTube (Derek has a presence on YouTube and Odysee), EZArch no longer served their purpose. DistroTube is very knowledgeable with Linux. EZArch is considered obsolete.
I agree, EndeavourOS is good if you have some experience using Linux. If you’re new, Manjaro is probably the easiest Arch distro to install and use, but it is further from vanilla Arch.