1)
This begs the question: does arch really want users who can't get through the current installer? Isn't the user base Arch Linux is catering to one that /should/ understand this?
definitely. in fact, i think our current interactive installer is
already too complicated/userfriendly.
there have been some discussions about this already.
E.g.
http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-releng/2009-August/000721.html
2) for those who say "partitioning is too difficult" -> have you tried
the automatic partitioning in aif (very similar to the one in
old /arch/setup btw)? can't go much easier then that imho. except maybe
if the user doesn't even know what an ext3 is.
3)
On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 23:50:12 -0600
"David C. Rankin"
No, No, No..
Dieter, you are looking at it all wrong. You are approaching it like an engineer or scientist sees things. (...)
very funny :)
If I had two suggestions for the arch installer, it would be theses: (..)
that would make things even more complicated. You're right though that those points are the biggest diffs with other installers. especially the package selection. but i don't think we should implement it in the core of aif. See also http://bounty.archlinux.ca/projects/3/ The config files are so powerful you can just add whichever repositories you need and add packages/groups to install whatever you want. http://github.com/Dieterbe/aif/blob/master/examples/generic-install-on-sda This should also answer Denis' question.
I agree with Dieter, that the install should be measured by speed and automation -- but long ago I realized that there a whole lot of other people out there that just don't think like me :p
Don't misunderstand me. An interactive hold-your-hand-a-bit installation processes is a good thing for many use cases (if implemented correctly). There are many ways to judge installations by. I'm only saying: if one chooses to judge an installation system by the criterion of speed, then (s)he better gets his/her facts right before calling our approach slow[er]. Dieter