On 7 February 2011 17:33, Thomas Bächler <thomas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Am 07.02.2011 10:26, schrieb Olivier Keun | CAPSTONE: >> Maybe it would be better if a more fundamental line is drawn between the >> two, such as the website design like Ionuț mentions. And a clear statement >> on the ArchBang website that it is _not_ an official Arch project. > > Maybe it would be a good first step to be clear about what ArchBang > really is - and as far as I can see, it is simply a customized > installer, nothing more. > > I like that their website resembles ours though. Think about it as a custom larch or archiso compilation. That way, users using official avenue for support is still proper. However, we are walking a thin line here. It would appear as if we're showing partiality and are biased. Where would we draw the line? Intention of the distribution?
