[arch-general] Good press at distrowatch.com

[Ng Oon-Ee]

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 at 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.