[arch-dev-public] ISO quality [was: kernel26 signoff]

[Roman Kyrylych]

2008/3/24, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin at gmail.com>:
> On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 4:50 PM, Tobias Powalowski <t.powa at gmx.de> wrote:
>  > Am Montag, 24. März 2008 schrieb Aaron Griffin:
>  >
>  >
>  > > Splitting thread
>  >  >
>  >  > On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 4:31 PM, Tobias Powalowski <t.powa at gmx.de> wrote:
>  >  > > Am Montag, 24. März 2008 schrieb Simo Leone:
>  >  > > > On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 07:28:13PM +0100, Tobias Powalowski wrote:
>  >  > >  > > Users are happy with the new ISOs, just read the Forum thread about
>  >  > >  > > it.
>  >  > >  >
>  >  > >  > You know what. I don't care if the users are happy with the new ISOs.
>  >  > >  > That's right, I finally said it.
>  >  > >  > _I DON'T CARE_
>  >  > >  >
>  >  > >  > I don't care because _I_ am not happy with them. As someone who can
>  >  > >  > see that from a technological standpoint, it's a marvel that they even
>  >  > >  > work, that is, as a software developer, I'm ashamed to be associated
>  >  > >  > with such a shoddy product.
>  >  > >  >
>  >  > >  > I've offered alternatives, hell I've spent a lot of time offering
>  >  > >  > alternatives, built on more solid software enginerring principles
>  >  > >  > than "Users are Happy", but no one around here, save Dan and Aaron,
>  >  > >  > who just happen to be code contributors, seems to give a damn. What's
>  >  > >  > up with that?
>  >  > >
>  >  > >  You never started to create ISOs nor you wanted to create them.
>  >  > >  This topic here is about kernel26 signoff and i would be fine if people
>  >  > > would stay on topic.
>  >  >
>  >  > Please see here back in October:
>  >  > http://archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/2007-October/002616.html
>  >
>  >  Ok no big deal, Simo will create the next ISO.
>
>
> Great news!
>

Great? Not in my opinion. :-/
I can say only "W.T.F.?!".
We finally have a new RC ISO based on *working* and polished code,
though not technologically superb.
And IMO it will be much better if we release it and *then* someone may
want to create a new ISO based on archiso.
Why *noone* suggested archiso when it was known that we are about to
release new ISO (or better, offered a help or even created it by
himself) if that's that important?
I don't understand this, sorry.

BTW, I don't understand why this thread was named ISO quality.
Did anyone try the ISO so one can say about some issues with it
besides that it's not based on archiso?
Not that I'm all for archboot and against archiso (actually, I like
archiso more) but I don't see issues with archboot that could label
ISO generated with it as "bad quality".

-- 
Roman Kyrylych (Роман Кирилич)