[arch-general] Good press at distrowatch.com
Guys, Probably old news to most, but I was very pleased to see the good press Arch got from distrowatch.com this week. See: http://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20091214#news The article reads: <quote> With Arch Linux having become such a popular distro, often praised for its rolling-release model of installing once and keeping it updated forever, we thought it would be a good time to take another look at Archiso-live. Archiso-live is an Arch Linux live CD that boots into an Xfce desktop and has a graphical system installer. In the earlier releases the installer did not work correctly, but the more recent ones come with a much improved version. We installed in on a test machine and can confirm that it was able to transfer the entire live CD onto a hard disk partition with no problems. Of course, if you install Arch Linux this way, you'll be "cheating", since easy, click-and-point installation isn't part of the "Arch way" of doing things. Nevertheless, as a method of testing this exciting distro, the "Archiso-live way" is a great time-saver. The latest version at the time of writing is 20091208 and it can be downloaded from here: archiso-live-2009-12-08.iso (685MB, MD5). </quote> Good job guys. Another testament to wise decision making, good distro management, and smart devs ;-) -- David C. Rankin, J.D.,P.E. Rankin Law Firm, PLLC 510 Ochiltree Street Nacogdoches, Texas 75961 Telephone: (936) 715-9333 Facsimile: (936) 715-9339 www.rankinlawfirm.com
On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 10:49:15 -0600 "David C. Rankin" <drankinatty@suddenlinkmail.com> wrote:
The article reads:
<quote> Nevertheless, as a method of testing this exciting distro, the "Archiso-live way" is a great time-saver. </quote>
did that guy actually say that point and click visual installers are a time *saver* ?? is he out of his mind? Dieter
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 11:55 AM, Dieter Plaetinck <dieter@plaetinck.be> wrote:
did that guy actually say that point and click visual installers are a time *saver* ?? is he out of his mind?
It seems that most reviews on distrowatch.com come from the standpoint that Ubuntu is the ultimate user-friendly system. Arch, Gentoo and Slackware users beg to differ, but I guess the most typical Linux user agrees and that's who they are catering to.
On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 13:33:22 -0500 Denis Kobozev <d.v.kobozev@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 11:55 AM, Dieter Plaetinck <dieter@plaetinck.be> wrote:
did that guy actually say that point and click visual installers are a time *saver* ?? is he out of his mind?
It seems that most reviews on distrowatch.com come from the standpoint that Ubuntu is the ultimate user-friendly system. Arch, Gentoo and Slackware users beg to differ, but I guess the most typical Linux user agrees and that's who they are catering to.
it's not about userfriendliness, which is a very subjective topic. it's about time duration, which is scientifically measurable. I'm pretty sure a scripted automatic installation goes faster then one where you need to point and click to make it do things.
On 12/17/2009 12:35 PM, Dieter Plaetinck wrote:
On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 13:33:22 -0500 Denis Kobozev <d.v.kobozev@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 11:55 AM, Dieter Plaetinck <dieter@plaetinck.be> wrote:
did that guy actually say that point and click visual installers are a time *saver* ?? is he out of his mind?
It seems that most reviews on distrowatch.com come from the standpoint that Ubuntu is the ultimate user-friendly system. Arch, Gentoo and Slackware users beg to differ, but I guess the most typical Linux user agrees and that's who they are catering to.
it's not about userfriendliness, which is a very subjective topic. it's about time duration, which is scientifically measurable.
I'm pretty sure a scripted automatic installation goes faster then one where you need to point and click to make it do things.
Isn't the Arch installer always graphical, with a menu and stuff? Just because you use your keyboard instead of a mouse and it doesn't use X doesn't really make it any less user-friendly does it?
On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 12:40:03 -0700 Brendan Long <korin43@gmail.com> wrote:
Isn't the Arch installer always graphical, with a menu and stuff? Just because you use your keyboard instead of a mouse and it doesn't use X doesn't really make it any less user-friendly does it?
no. it can also do fully automated installations. but it's a quite recent feature so I don't blame anyone for not knowing it. (take my previous reactions with a grain of salt and some humor ;) Dieter
On Thu, 2009-12-17 at 20:49 +0100, Dieter Plaetinck wrote:
On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 12:40:03 -0700 Brendan Long <korin43@gmail.com> wrote:
Isn't the Arch installer always graphical, with a menu and stuff? Just because you use your keyboard instead of a mouse and it doesn't use X doesn't really make it any less user-friendly does it?
no. it can also do fully automated installations.
but it's a quite recent feature so I don't blame anyone for not knowing it. (take my previous reactions with a grain of salt and some humor ;)
Dieter
It does fully automated? Haven't looked at the installer since installing (go figure). Ubuntu's installer goes much faster though, if the benchmark is 'to a working gnome system', especially for those of us with slow internet connections who aren't able to download half a Gb here and there at the snap of a finger. Nothing to do with the point-and-click, more about the fact that with Arch you do have to download pretty big files, and multiple times (sort of like, install xorg and related packages, wait.... configure, install alsa/sound related packages, wait... configure)
On 12/17/2009 04:22 PM, Ng Oon-Ee wrote:
On Thu, 2009-12-17 at 20:49 +0100, Dieter Plaetinck wrote:
On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 12:40:03 -0700 Brendan Long <korin43@gmail.com> wrote:
Isn't the Arch installer always graphical, with a menu and stuff? Just because you use your keyboard instead of a mouse and it doesn't use X doesn't really make it any less user-friendly does it?
no. it can also do fully automated installations.
but it's a quite recent feature so I don't blame anyone for not knowing it. (take my previous reactions with a grain of salt and some humor ;)
Dieter
It does fully automated? Haven't looked at the installer since installing (go figure).
Ubuntu's installer goes much faster though, if the benchmark is 'to a working gnome system', especially for those of us with slow internet connections who aren't able to download half a Gb here and there at the snap of a finger. Nothing to do with the point-and-click, more about the fact that with Arch you do have to download pretty big files, and multiple times (sort of like, install xorg and related packages, wait.... configure, install alsa/sound related packages, wait... configure)
The downloading big packages step isn't any better with Ubuntu, you just get to wait until after the installation is over and then install a huge number of updates -- a problem that would be much worse if Ubuntu ever updated anything.
On Thu, 2009-12-17 at 16:45 -0700, Brendan Long wrote:
On 12/17/2009 04:22 PM, Ng Oon-Ee wrote:
On Thu, 2009-12-17 at 20:49 +0100, Dieter Plaetinck wrote:
On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 12:40:03 -0700 Brendan Long <korin43@gmail.com> wrote:
Isn't the Arch installer always graphical, with a menu and stuff? Just because you use your keyboard instead of a mouse and it doesn't use X doesn't really make it any less user-friendly does it?
no. it can also do fully automated installations.
but it's a quite recent feature so I don't blame anyone for not knowing it. (take my previous reactions with a grain of salt and some humor ;)
Dieter
It does fully automated? Haven't looked at the installer since installing (go figure).
Ubuntu's installer goes much faster though, if the benchmark is 'to a working gnome system', especially for those of us with slow internet connections who aren't able to download half a Gb here and there at the snap of a finger. Nothing to do with the point-and-click, more about the fact that with Arch you do have to download pretty big files, and multiple times (sort of like, install xorg and related packages, wait.... configure, install alsa/sound related packages, wait... configure)
The downloading big packages step isn't any better with Ubuntu, you just get to wait until after the installation is over and then install a huge number of updates -- a problem that would be much worse if Ubuntu ever updated anything.
I don't disagree fully, but with Ubuntu you get somthing that works at a lower version while waiting for the download, while with Arch you get to wait for the download first.
Ng Oon-Ee wrote:
On Thu, 2009-12-17 at 16:45 -0700, Brendan Long wrote:
On 12/17/2009 04:22 PM, Ng Oon-Ee wrote:
On Thu, 2009-12-17 at 20:49 +0100, Dieter Plaetinck wrote:
On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 12:40:03 -0700 Brendan Long <korin43@gmail.com> wrote:
Isn't the Arch installer always graphical, with a menu and stuff? Just because you use your keyboard instead of a mouse and it doesn't use X doesn't really make it any less user-friendly does it?
no. it can also do fully automated installations.
but it's a quite recent feature so I don't blame anyone for not knowing it. (take my previous reactions with a grain of salt and some humor ;)
Dieter
It does fully automated? Haven't looked at the installer since installing (go figure).
Ubuntu's installer goes much faster though, if the benchmark is 'to a working gnome system', especially for those of us with slow internet connections who aren't able to download half a Gb here and there at the snap of a finger. Nothing to do with the point-and-click, more about the fact that with Arch you do have to download pretty big files, and multiple times (sort of like, install xorg and related packages, wait.... configure, install alsa/sound related packages, wait... configure)
The downloading big packages step isn't any better with Ubuntu, you just get to wait until after the installation is over and then install a huge number of updates -- a problem that would be much worse if Ubuntu ever updated anything.
I don't disagree fully, but with Ubuntu you get somthing that works at a lower version while waiting for the download, while with Arch you get to wait for the download first.
This is not a particularly good comparison. With Ubuntu, you download all the software with the install CD...
A large number of packages in Ubuntu install CDs are out of date when you install it, so a long downloading time is inevitable. Things are similar when install archlinux, I would prefer to install packages as little as possible since a lot of them need to download updated versions later. This is a part of reason why I like arch's LiveCD. 2009/12/18 Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org>:
Ng Oon-Ee wrote:
On Thu, 2009-12-17 at 16:45 -0700, Brendan Long wrote:
On 12/17/2009 04:22 PM, Ng Oon-Ee wrote:
On Thu, 2009-12-17 at 20:49 +0100, Dieter Plaetinck wrote:
On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 12:40:03 -0700 Brendan Long <korin43@gmail.com> wrote:
Isn't the Arch installer always graphical, with a menu and stuff? Just because you use your keyboard instead of a mouse and it doesn't use X doesn't really make it any less user-friendly does it?
no. it can also do fully automated installations.
but it's a quite recent feature so I don't blame anyone for not knowing it. (take my previous reactions with a grain of salt and some humor ;)
Dieter
It does fully automated? Haven't looked at the installer since installing (go figure).
Ubuntu's installer goes much faster though, if the benchmark is 'to a working gnome system', especially for those of us with slow internet connections who aren't able to download half a Gb here and there at the snap of a finger. Nothing to do with the point-and-click, more about the fact that with Arch you do have to download pretty big files, and multiple times (sort of like, install xorg and related packages, wait.... configure, install alsa/sound related packages, wait... configure)
The downloading big packages step isn't any better with Ubuntu, you just get to wait until after the installation is over and then install a huge number of updates -- a problem that would be much worse if Ubuntu ever updated anything.
I don't disagree fully, but with Ubuntu you get somthing that works at a lower version while waiting for the download, while with Arch you get to wait for the download first.
This is not a particularly good comparison. With Ubuntu, you download all the software with the install CD...
-- LI Ye M.S. Student School of Information Science and Engineering Southeast University, P.R. China liye@seu.edu.cn
2009/12/17 Ng Oon-Ee <ngoonee@gmail.com>:
Ubuntu's installer goes much faster though, if the benchmark is 'to a working gnome system', especially for those of us with slow internet connections who aren't able to download half a Gb here and there at the snap of a finger.
Maybe "user-friendliness" was the wrong thing to bring up, but for most reviews on distrowatch.com, "working ghome/kde/[your DE of choice] systems" is the benchmark. Other things, such as freshness of packages, don't matter as much, so I do believe that their reviews target a specific audience. If you're just getting started with Linux, there's a slim chance that you'll understand why systems such as Arch or Gentoo even exist from their reviews. On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 2:35 PM, Dieter Plaetinck <dieter@plaetinck.be> wrote:
it's not about userfriendliness, which is a very subjective topic. it's about time duration, which is scientifically measurable.
Automated scripted installation should be faster, by definition. Is there a script / config file for AIF that will install a full system with DE, akin to Archiso-live? Denis.
On 12/17/2009 01:35 PM, Dieter Plaetinck wrote:
it's not about userfriendliness, which is a very subjective topic. it's about time duration, which is scientifically measurable.
I'm pretty sure a scripted automatic installation goes faster then one where you need to point and click to make it do things.
No, No, No.. Dieter, you are looking at it all wrong. You are approaching it like an engineer or scientist sees things. The rest of the world judges installs by whether they have a cute animated character to look at while the install takes place and whether they receive any prompts they don't understand. So, that's exactly what Arch needs to do. Come up with a cute 6-frame .gif and redirect all install errors to /dev/null and then watch the ratings rise :p Seriously, I like the Arch installer just fine, but I can tell you that the Ubuntu/SuSE install rating most likely come from the fact that the gui installers they employ are easy on the eye and they have put a lot of effort into automating the difficult parts of the install procedure that most new users don't understand --> the partitioning. I can tell you from personal experience in the past 3 weeks from having installed Arch on 2 boxes and having installed suse on 2 boxes, that there has been a good bit of work put into the automatic suggestion of partitioning schemes by suse. Arch's install is fine if you know what you are doing, but for someone coming over from M$, even though it is just 7 little steps, if you need the install to do most of the work for you -- well, it doesn't. That I think is the big difference to the distrowatches of the world. Can they have one of their writers sit down and install the OS without having to sit there scratching their head and ultimately asking for help. If I had two suggestions for the arch installer, it would be theses: (1) Automate the proposed partitioning scheme for the most common new user setups. (a) Dual-boot: check for windows and if exists, preserve win, propose shrinking for free space if no unused space and configure grub to chainload windows. (b) Existing linux install (with or without win partition): if no unpartitioned space, propose preserving home and formatting / and any other partitions for new arch install, elif freespace >20G propose maintaining existing install and installing arch into free space, elif <20G do the first option preserving /home, etc.. (2) For package selection pose a preliminary package selection question before the actual package selection to see if the user wants the detailed base package selection or standard base packages. If standard selection, install the full base running some type of hardware query for selection of hardware dependent packages. For the detailed, just leave the arch install as is. Those 2 areas are the areas where I see the biggest differences between the current arch install and what the other distrowatch favorites do and logically they are also the two areas that give new users the most frustration. 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 -- David C. Rankin, J.D.,P.E. Rankin Law Firm, PLLC 510 Ochiltree Street Nacogdoches, Texas 75961 Telephone: (936) 715-9333 Facsimile: (936) 715-9339 www.rankinlawfirm.com
On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 12:50 AM, David C. Rankin <drankinatty@suddenlinkmail.com>
Seriously, I like the Arch installer just fine, but I can tell you that the Ubuntu/SuSE install rating most likely come from the fact that the gui installers they employ are easy on the eye and they have put a lot of effort into automating the difficult parts of the install procedure that most new users don't understand --> the partitioning.
Partitioning was scary for me precisely because many systems try to hide it from the user. The data that you have might be more valuable to you than your machine. The automated partitioning tool might or might not do the right thing. And if it screws up, you have no idea what went wrong and how to deal with it. A short anecdote. Several years ago, I decided to install Ubuntu (my first "real" distro, as opposed to a LiveCD) on my desktop. I had two drives: 500 GiB, where my Windows install and other files lived, and an old 80 GiB drive, for Ubuntu installation. During the install, Ubuntu overwrote MBR on the 500 GiB drive and installed Ubuntu and GRUB on the 80 GiB one. Long story short, all was fine until I decided to remove the 80 GiB drive with Ubuntu from my machine - without it, Windows wouldn't boot due to missing GRUB. And in order to make the machine bootable again, I had to spend a considerable amount of time reading about bootloaders, GRUB, MBRs, partitions and all that. My point is that I'm not at all convinced that automating the difficult parts is the way to go. It might be preferred by some, but I'm not sure that they know what they're missing (I didn't). You will have to know what you are doing sooner or later. I'm also not convinced that people who do not wish to read about partitioning should install OSs on their own, but hey, what do I know :)
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 11:50 PM, David C. Rankin <drankinatty@suddenlinkmail.com> wrote:
Seriously, I like the Arch installer just fine, but I can tell you that the Ubuntu/SuSE install rating most likely come from the fact that the gui installers they employ are easy on the eye and they have put a lot of effort into automating the difficult parts of the install procedure that most new users don't understand --> the partitioning.
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?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 01:40:24 -0600 Jonathan Temple <jontemple@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 11:50 PM, David C. Rankin <drankinatty@suddenlinkmail.com> wrote:
Seriously, I like the Arch installer just fine, but I can tell you that the Ubuntu/SuSE install rating most likely come from the fact that the gui installers they employ are easy on the eye and they have put a lot of effort into automating the difficult parts of the install procedure that most new users don't understand --> the partitioning.
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?
+1 - -- Myles Green Linux. It isn't about it being free, it's about the freedom it brings. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAksrYckACgkQ1TmPUtHwHkey+wCdF1KXP5jVTkjVobtNf0qn4Dq8 3KEAmgMZYJDPmRD86BNoDkGlXVeZPonU =Gpdm -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Myles Green wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 01:40:24 -0600 Jonathan Temple <jontemple@gmail.com> wrote:
Seriously, I like the Arch installer just fine, but I can tell you that the Ubuntu/SuSE install rating most likely come from the fact that the gui installers they employ are easy on the eye and they have put a lot of effort into automating the difficult parts of the install procedure that most new users don't understand --> the partitioning. This begs the question: does arch really want users who can't get
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 11:50 PM, David C. Rankin <drankinatty@suddenlinkmail.com> wrote: through the current installer? Isn't the user base Arch Linux is catering to one that /should/ understand this?
+1
- -- Myles Green
Linux. It isn't about it being free, it's about the freedom it brings. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAksrYckACgkQ1TmPUtHwHkey+wCdF1KXP5jVTkjVobtNf0qn4Dq8 3KEAmgMZYJDPmRD86BNoDkGlXVeZPonU =Gpdm -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Good thing you signed that message... it would be a shame if we did not know that "+1" was definitely from you. Allan
On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 06:17, Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org> wrote:
Good thing you signed that message... it would be a shame if we did not know that "+1" was definitely from you.
Allan
+1
I liked the Arch installer except I would liked to have a different partitioner as I find the current one's interface to be quite cumbersome in comparison to say the partitioner that is in the Debian installer. Otherwise the Archlinux installer is very simple in my opinion. Best regards Nicklas W Bjurman On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 3:59 PM, Daenyth Blank <daenyth+arch@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 06:17, Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org> wrote:
Good thing you signed that message... it would be a shame if we did not know that "+1" was definitely from you.
Allan
+1
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" <drankinatty@suddenlinkmail.com> wrote:
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
On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 11:54 AM, Dieter Plaetinck <dieter@plaetinck.be> wrote:
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.
It's probably only a matter of time before somebody releases a config file for installing a set of packages similar to a typical desktop distro, such as Ubuntu. Then Arch installer might become one of the fastest among all distributions, both in terms of actual speed and perceived speed from the user's perspective. You boot, you type aif -p automatic -c /usr/share/aif/examples/gnome-install-on-sda, you wait a bit and then you have a complete and up-to-date desktop system. No clicking 'next, next, next...' ad nauseam, no silly little choices to make. There's a pitfall though: too many possible config files and you're forcing a user to make a choice he or she doesn't care about :) Users familiar with Linux will most likely want to create personalized config files for their own needs and wouldn't rely on pre-made templates. A bit idealistic view, perhaps, but probably not very far from reality. Dieter, is it possible to resize existing partitions via PARTITIONS variable in the config file? What kind of error do you get if you put incorrect values there? Denis.
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 13:58:54 -0500 Denis Kobozev <d.v.kobozev@gmail.com> wrote:
Dieter, is it possible to resize existing partitions via PARTITIONS variable in the config file?
don't think so. it's meant to make new ones.
What kind of error do you get if you put incorrect values there?
You'll get an error that partitioning failed. in the interactive procedure you can just retry. for the automatic.. i don't remember. maybe it just aborts. Dieter
On Fri 18 Dec 2009 17:54 +0100, Dieter Plaetinck wrote:
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].
It's probably considered slower because there is a lot of prior knowledge that is required. It may be easier (and faster) for someone who has no computer background to install Ubuntu than to install Arch. With Arch that person would have to do a lot more reading and learning, which would take a lot more time.
On 12/18/2009 01:40 AM, Jonathan Temple wrote:
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 11:50 PM, David C. Rankin <drankinatty@suddenlinkmail.com> wrote:
Seriously, I like the Arch installer just fine, but I can tell you that the Ubuntu/SuSE install rating most likely come from the fact that the gui installers they employ are easy on the eye and they have put a lot of effort into automating the difficult parts of the install procedure that most new users don't understand --> the partitioning.
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?
All depends on what the ultimate goals for the distro are. Me? I wouldn't change a thing. I like Arch the way it is and I hope it stays like this until I'm old and gray (sh... I'm getting there ;-) I don't think Arch should try to keep up with the Jones' or worry about what distro watch says. But, in the alternative, if the goal is to see just how far and how widely accepted Arch can become in hopes of selling out to someone like Novell, Corel, etc.., then it might make sense to look a bit harder at what makes the rating meter tick. Personally, I don't think all the money in the world would be worth sacrificing the niche Arch has carved out for itself in the Linux community... -- David C. Rankin, J.D.,P.E. Rankin Law Firm, PLLC 510 Ochiltree Street Nacogdoches, Texas 75961 Telephone: (936) 715-9333 Facsimile: (936) 715-9339 www.rankinlawfirm.com
On 02:47 Sat 19 Dec, David C. Rankin wrote:
On 12/18/2009 01:40 AM, Jonathan Temple wrote:
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 11:50 PM, David C. Rankin <drankinatty@suddenlinkmail.com> wrote:
Seriously, I like the Arch installer just fine, but I can tell you that the Ubuntu/SuSE install rating most likely come from the fact that the gui installers they employ are easy on the eye and they have put a lot of effort into automating the difficult parts of the install procedure that most new users don't understand --> the partitioning.
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?
All depends on what the ultimate goals for the distro are. Me? I wouldn't change a thing. I like Arch the way it is and I hope it stays like this until I'm old and gray (sh... I'm getting there ;-)
I don't think Arch should try to keep up with the Jones' or worry about what distro watch says. But, in the alternative, if the goal is to see just how far and how widely accepted Arch can become in hopes of selling out to someone like Novell, Corel, etc.., then it might make sense to look a bit harder at what makes the rating meter tick.
Personally, I don't think all the money in the world would be worth sacrificing the niche Arch has carved out for itself in the Linux community...
-- David C. Rankin, J.D.,P.E. Rankin Law Firm, PLLC 510 Ochiltree Street Nacogdoches, Texas 75961 Telephone: (936) 715-9333 Facsimile: (936) 715-9339 www.rankinlawfirm.com
+1
On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 2:47 AM, David C. Rankin <drankinatty@suddenlinkmail.com> wrote:
All depends on what the ultimate goals for the distro are. Me? I wouldn't change a thing. I like Arch the way it is and I hope it stays like this until I'm old and gray (sh... I'm getting there ;-)
I don't think Arch should try to keep up with the Jones' or worry about what distro watch says. But, in the alternative, if the goal is to see just how far and how widely accepted Arch can become in hopes of selling out to someone like Novell, Corel, etc.., then it might make sense to look a bit harder at what makes the rating meter tick.
Personally, I don't think all the money in the world would be worth sacrificing the niche Arch has carved out for itself in the Linux community...
I agree completely, and that's really what I was trying to get at by posing that question
On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 02:26:56PM -0600, Jonathan Temple wrote:
On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 2:47 AM, David C. Rankin <drankinatty@suddenlinkmail.com> wrote:
Personally, I don't think all the money in the world would be worth sacrificing the niche Arch has carved out for itself in the Linux community...
I agree completely, and that's really what I was trying to get at by posing that question
I add my vote to that. -- FA
Le jeudi 17 à 20:35, Dieter Plaetinck a écrit :
On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 13:33:22 -0500 Denis Kobozev <d.v.kobozev@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 11:55 AM, Dieter Plaetinck <dieter@plaetinck.be> wrote:
did that guy actually say that point and click visual installers are a time *saver* ?? is he out of his mind?
It seems that most reviews on distrowatch.com come from the standpoint that Ubuntu is the ultimate user-friendly system. Arch, Gentoo and Slackware users beg to differ, but I guess the most typical Linux user agrees and that's who they are catering to.
it's not about userfriendliness, which is a very subjective topic. it's about time duration, which is scientifically measurable.
I'm pretty sure a scripted automatic installation goes faster then one where you need to point and click to make it do things.
You've never installed Debian/Ubuntu with a preseed.cfg file that answer all the questions for you (or, at your option, as many or as few questions as you wish)? You've never used FAI (Fully Automated Installed) either? (Well, I haven't, but a friend of mine, an Arch user, did, and he has only good things to say about its flexibility and the ease of setup.) I love to hate Ubuntu as much as the next guy, but the installer is not somewhere where Arch has an advantage. If you want an easy to use installer, as David pointed out in further in the thread, you go it; if you want to build an ISO that answers all the installer questions, you got it; if you want a setup where you can plug a machine, tell it to boot over the network, go drink a coffee and go back to a system completly installed, you got it. -- Fred
I always liked the Arch installer from the 0.7 days. I used to be able to setup an entire system in less than ten minutes and be ready to do work. The latest Arch installer makes it take more like fifteen minutes instead. Of course, that older Arch didn't have to cope with initcpio or any other early userspace magic. On Dec 19, 2009 4:43 PM, "Frédéric Perrin" <frederic.perrin@resel.fr> wrote: Le jeudi 17 à 20:35, Dieter Plaetinck a écrit :
On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 13:33:22 -0500 > Denis Kobozev <d.v.kobozev@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Thu, Dec 1... You've never installed Debian/Ubuntu with a preseed.cfg file that answer all the questions for you (or, at your option, as many or as few questions as you wish)? You've never used FAI (Fully Automated Installed) either? (Well, I haven't, but a friend of mine, an Arch user, did, and he has only good things to say about its flexibility and the ease of setup.)
I love to hate Ubuntu as much as the next guy, but the installer is not somewhere where Arch has an advantage. If you want an easy to use installer, as David pointed out in further in the thread, you go it; if you want to build an ISO that answers all the installer questions, you got it; if you want a setup where you can plug a machine, tell it to boot over the network, go drink a coffee and go back to a system completly installed, you got it. -- Fred
On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 22:43:17 +0100 Frédéric Perrin <frederic.perrin@resel.fr> wrote:
You've never installed Debian/Ubuntu with a preseed.cfg file that answer all the questions for you (or, at your option, as many or as few questions as you wish)? You've never used FAI (Fully Automated Installed) either? (Well, I haven't, but a friend of mine, an Arch user, did, and he has only good things to say about its flexibility and the ease of setup.)
I love to hate Ubuntu as much as the next guy, but the installer is not somewhere where Arch has an advantage. If you want an easy to use installer, as David pointed out in further in the thread, you go it; if you want to build an ISO that answers all the installer questions, you got it; if you want a setup where you can plug a machine, tell it to boot over the network, go drink a coffee and go back to a system completly installed, you got it.
I have used FAI extensively to mass-install servers. Don't put words in my mouth: my point was that "point and click" installers are not necessarily faster then what we have. BTW: debian/ubuntu installers are complex (in lines of code), especially if you add fai on top of that, which re-implements a lot of things. Dieter
Le samedi 19 à 22:59, Dieter Plaetinck a écrit :
You've never installed Debian/Ubuntu with a preseed.cfg file that answer all the questions for you (or, at your option, as many or as few questions as you wish)? You've never used FAI (Fully Automated Installed) either?
I have used FAI extensively to mass-install servers. Don't put words in my mouth: my point was that "point and click" installers are not necessarily faster then what we have.
Oh, I understood your original post as "with all its shiny dialogs, Ubuntu won't let me install a damn OS with minimal human interaction". Sorry for that. Still, I keep on thinking that debian-install[1] is a nifty piece of software that does everything you can expect from an installer.
BTW: debian/ubuntu installers are complex (in lines of code), especially if you add fai on top of that, which re-implements a lot of things.
Dieter
[1] The last time I installed Ubuntu, but that was long ago, it used a glorified d-i. Make a s/Ubuntu/Debian/ if they no longer use d-i. -- Fred
participants (16)
-
Allan McRae
-
Andrew Allen Barkley
-
Brendan Long
-
Daenyth Blank
-
David C. Rankin
-
Denis Kobozev
-
Dieter Plaetinck
-
fons＠kokkinizita.net
-
Frédéric Perrin
-
Jonathan Temple
-
LI Ye
-
Loui Chang
-
Myles Green
-
Ng Oon-Ee
-
Nicklas Widlund Bjurman
-
Robert Howard