[arch-general] Good press at distrowatch.com

[Allan McRae]

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 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.
> 

This is not a particularly good comparison.  With Ubuntu, you download 
all the software with the install CD...