Le jeudi 17 à 20:35, Dieter Plaetinck a écrit : > On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 13:33:22 -0500 > Denis Kobozev <d.v.kobozev@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 11:55 AM, Dieter Plaetinck >> <dieter@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> did that guy actually say that point and click visual installers >>> are a time *saver* ?? is he out of his mind? >> >> It seems that most reviews on distrowatch.com come from the standpoint >> that Ubuntu is the ultimate user-friendly system. Arch, Gentoo and >> Slackware users beg to differ, but I guess the most typical Linux user >> agrees and that's who they are catering to. > > it's not about userfriendliness, which is a very subjective topic. > it's about time duration, which is scientifically measurable. > > I'm pretty sure a scripted automatic installation goes faster then > one where you need to point and click to make it do things. You've never installed Debian/Ubuntu with a preseed.cfg file that answer all the questions for you (or, at your option, as many or as few questions as you wish)? You've never used FAI (Fully Automated Installed) either? (Well, I haven't, but a friend of mine, an Arch user, did, and he has only good things to say about its flexibility and the ease of setup.) I love to hate Ubuntu as much as the next guy, but the installer is not somewhere where Arch has an advantage. If you want an easy to use installer, as David pointed out in further in the thread, you go it; if you want to build an ISO that answers all the installer questions, you got it; if you want a setup where you can plug a machine, tell it to boot over the network, go drink a coffee and go back to a system completly installed, you got it. -- Fred
