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