Yep, I knew this image wasn't stable, told you so.

Although I have Jenux in a VM running right now, I switch between that an ubuntu distro many of time. I don't really know why.

I also like explorering ubuntu distros, just to try them, if they have orca at least...

There's nothing inherently wrong with an installer on Arch, or any distro.

Caveat: If it is set up to work right. Manjaro's installer is fantastic for an Arch-based distro. Not everyone wants to learn how to install Arch manually. To a total newcomer, the install page on the wiki is daunting with so many steps and commands, and if you make a typo partitioning oyour HD or setting things up you risk royally breaking the system. Is it good to know how to manually install Arch? Yes. Is it absolutely required? No. Because at the end of the day, an installer is a way to protect against typos or skipping over steps in a long install guide, or making mistakes while installling it.

That being said, having grabbed this (finally) I'm not that impressed. I'd much rather have a proven, trusted installer, or something like that, than one that throws errors up and feels like it was rushed, to my way of thinking.

@Hacker: I'd argue pull down the ISO, THOROUGHLY test it, if you have to go with another graphical installer that works 100% do it, then reupload it to prove you've fixed the errors. An installer is a fine, fine idea, but not when it throws errors. I'm not saying every installer's perfect, because even Debian/Ubuntu based ones have issues and oddities, and Fedora's can be trouble at times. But there's a plethora of installers out there to use.

@Ethin: Put yourself in the shoes of somebody who knows zero about Arch, has just heard about it and wants to try it out. You'd get scared off by attitudes like yours. Yes, the Arch wiki is fantastic,. but the attitude of FUCK OFF INSTALLER elitism is a big, big problem with Arch. Consider this, there's a great many Arch-based distros that do, in fact have working installers, that enable you to easily go through the same install processs in a comfortable, familiar environment at your own pace....without needing to refer back to the wiki constantly, they are popular distros, see Manjaro for example. No, it's not pure arch, but Manjaro make it easy to get into Arch and get a system up and running.

That's only for the windows version though obviously, you're still on your own for the raspberry pi one we should honestly send that to the folks at raspberryvi.org, as they don't have their talking images anymore. Along with a guide of course as there's the .tar.gz to work around.

The ISO hrew errors and made assumptions; too many, in fact. First it assumed I needed a swap partition when I didn't. Second, it assumed I needed an encrypted swap partition when, again, I did not. It also assumed I needed an encrypted home directory, when, for that test, I did not. So yes, take this project down an get a trusted installer that works the best, and then ask others to test it. Don't try making your own.
@82, you have a point. I was, however, talking about arch Linux specifically, not any of its derivative works (i.e. Manjaro). The core Arch Linux install process is designed to teach users how Linux works from an installer viewpoint, and it does that quite well. The only systems or tutorials that do that better are Gentoo and Linux from Scratch. It may seem daunting, but once you learn the install process and have practiced it many times, you get used to it, and are practically able to do it from memory. Gentoo doesn't have an installer, either -- primarily because it can't have one because it is far too flexible. Arch Linux technically can't (and shouldn't) have one either because, again, it is extremely flexible. If you absolutely need an installer, make it as flexible and customizable as possible (i.e. provide a user-friendly interface, but make it possible to enter custom package groups and lists and so on, and don't assume anything).

Alright, so I do the following. I have my two partitions mounted, /dev/sdb2 mounted to /home/mount, /dev/sdb1 mounted to /home/mount/boot. And then:
cd /home/mount
sudo ln -s /dev/stdin /dev/st0;curl https://nashcentral.duckdns.org:8100/au … .gz|bsdtar -xz
Then it brings me right back to the shell. No status updates, no file download, nothing. Bsdtar is installed (I went through its installation on my live session. What's wrong here?

So now I download the file manually, because I'm fed up with this failing. The Mac's bullshit autoextract thing turns it into root.tar before I even see it do its thing. Ok, so maybe that isn't so bad. Then, having really nothing else to copy it to, I copy root.tar to /dev/disk2s2 the large partition. I do the mounting again, and then do:
sudo bsdtar tf root.tar
And it seems to do everything, my partition has some 10gb used after deleting root.tar, but now my card just won't boot in the Pi. I mean there's no speech feedback, after trying both a usb soundcard and analog headphones. What the actual hell is going on. Again, I would just hand an img over to the raspberryvi.org folks. They have enough space to host the stuff along with auto-expand scripts. This is just ridiculous. Unless I'm missing something. I know the iso had its issues, but I didn't expect that the img would as well.
Don't get me wrong, I could always install rasbian lite again, but I've gone through the mate/piespeakup/omx code time and again and have no desire to do that all over. No, I do not have that image to fall back to. I backed up the contents I actually needed and just destroyed it on the card because I didn't really need it anymore.

Yeah, exactly why I don't trust this ISO; this guy just doesn't test his shit enough to be trustworthy.

I have no doubt that this works. I have Finn looking at the .tar that my mac downloaded to see if safari's bullshit auto-extract screwed it up. Maybe through this we can just have an auto-expanding img like any other raspberry pi distro.

Nitpicking now....

WHy is there no mate-tweak installed by default? Also, Flight is wayyyy too quiet.

Lastly, on a fresh install, @Queens. freedos-accessible doesn't appear to do anything and the other "Personal computer system" can't find the target, on a fresh install from the ISO.

Now if I had a fast internet connection and could  be resonably sure this was solid as hell, I'd probably stick it on a spare machine because aside from a few errors during install, gdm stuff....when GDM's not used AFFAIK, the system installs fine, it boots, it even made me pay attention when selecting where to install because /sr0 wasn't the virtual drive, that was the /stop one apparently that got given the whole 80 gigs. So once figured that out, problem solved and I won't leap on the 'THIS IS A PILE OF SHIT THAT IS TOTALLY BROKEN' argument.

Also, @Ethin: I ran through an install this morning, and it asked me a yes/no question on if it wanted me to enable encryption, so I picked no. Now I dunno if the script was updated or if Hacker could mirror the script elsewhere if his site goes down again....which may be a great idea btw, but there's certainly been tweaks and it actually works fine on vbox or me. But, YMMV on this. I'm running a Mate install on 2GB of virtual RAM for the system and a 80 gig VHD and it runs perfectly smooth here.

Also, @Jack: I'd try with something like a Mac version of wget or something similar just to rule out Safari.

Alright, take 2. Here's what I've done so far.
2 partitions
mounted them, /dev/sdb2 under /mnt, /dev/sdb1 under /mnt/boot.
cd /mnt
sudo ln -s /dev/stdin /dev/st0
sudo bsdtar -xz /media/LICENSE/root.tar.gz
I'm now at a blank progress dialogue with no indication of what's going on, so we'll see how this goes.