Blog post detailing quick install of IPFS latest

[RichardLitt]

This is a copy of #8 that is being pushed to a local branch so that @RichardLitt can edit it. #8 will be closed.

[RichardLitt]

@kyledrake @jbenet I've edited up this blogpost a bit, and added an asciinema. Thoughts?

[jbenet]

@RichardLitt possible to include an ipfs link to a rendered version to review it there?

[RichardLitt]

Sure. https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmU88a9FPwxg5YN8BknKKc262bCqjaNvSgRFxJrt7H2vrp/2-run-ipfs-on-a-vps/

[RichardLitt]

@em-ly This is ready to go.

[em-ly]

@RichardLitt Awesome! Let's get someone to review and then we'll go live.

[whyrusleeping]

needs updating to refer to dist.ipfs.io now

[victorb]

> wget https://gobuilder.me/get/github.com/ipfs/go-ipfs/cmd/ipfs/ipfs_master_linux-amd64.zip
> unzip ipfs_master_linux-amd64.zip
> cp ipfs/ipfs /usr/local/bin/

Should change to:

$ wget https://dist.ipfs.io/go-ipfs/v0.4.4/go-ipfs_v0.4.4_linux-amd64.tar.gz
$ tar xfv go-ipfs_v0.4.4_linux-amd64.tar.gz
# cp ipfs/ipfs /usr/local/bin/

Oh, which also means

> apt-get install unzip wget

Should change to:

# apt install tar wget

Thinking about the code blocks, seems they include sh for some reason, that should be picked up by the parser and it shouldn't be there.

• Commands should be prefixed with either $ or # instead of >
• Asciicinema thingy is too damn high! See screenshot: https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmeznmZYxVexnmcGkz755ZDUVUzq4N1kCJXZCFZauwuucs

[whyrusleeping]

this will be named differently after the above changes

[whyrusleeping]

Should probably make it a bit more clear here that ipfs add does actually pin content automatically

[RichardLitt]

The first sentence says that. Maybe we should ask this question: Why would the hash not be returned? How would that happen?

[whyrusleeping]

mostly okay looking, needs a few updates

[RichardLitt]

@victorbjelkholm Tried to find the link to the original discussion about the > prompt, and failed. Our styleguide here uses > because it is more universal.

Updated the other things; thoughts?

[victorb]

@RichardLitt

@victorbjelkholm Tried to find the link to the original discussion about the > prompt, and failed. Our styleguide here uses > because it is more universal.

Fair enough, but if we don't want to indicate the privilege needed for running the command, you need to add sudo in front of cp ipfs/ipfs /usr/local/bin/ or something similar.

[RichardLitt]

@victorbjelkholm Added a note. How does it look now?

[victorb]

@RichardLitt looks awesome, think this is good to go 👍

[RichardLitt]

Sweet! Promoting this to ready.