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@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. 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.
