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@xxxxxxxxx> 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.
