I always liked the Arch installer from the 0.7 days. I used to be able to setup an entire system in less than ten minutes and be ready to do work. The latest Arch installer makes it take more like fifteen minutes instead. Of course, that older Arch didn't have to cope with initcpio or any other early userspace magic. On Dec 19, 2009 4:43 PM, "Frédéric Perrin" <frederic.perrin@xxxxxxxx> wrote: 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 1... 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
