Le samedi 19 à 22:59, Dieter Plaetinck a écrit :
>> 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?
>
> I have used FA
On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 22:43:17 +0100
Frédéric Perrin wrote:
> 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 ha
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 ear
Le jeudi 17 à 20:35, Dieter Plaetinck a écrit :
> On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 13:33:22 -0500
> Denis Kobozev wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 11:55 AM, Dieter Plaetinck
>> wrote:
>>> did that guy actually say that point and click visual installers
>>> are a time *saver* ?? is he out of his mind?
>>
>>
On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 02:26:56PM -0600, Jonathan Temple wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 2:47 AM, David C. Rankin
> wrote:
>
> > Personally, I don't think all the money in the world would be worth
> > sacrificing the niche Arch has carved out for itself in the Linux
> > community...
>
> I agre
On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 2:47 AM, David C. Rankin
wrote:
> All depends on what the ultimate goals for the distro are. Me? I wouldn't
> change a thing. I like Arch the way it is and I hope it stays like this
> until I'm old and gray (sh... I'm getting there ;-)
>
> I don't think Arch should try to k
On 02:47 Sat 19 Dec, David C. Rankin wrote:
> On 12/18/2009 01:40 AM, Jonathan Temple wrote:
> >On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 11:50 PM, David C. Rankin
> > wrote:
> >>
> >>Seriously, I like the Arch installer just fine, but I can tell you that the
> >>Ubuntu/SuSE install rating most likely come from th
On 12/18/2009 01:40 AM, Jonathan Temple wrote:
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 11:50 PM, David C. Rankin
wrote:
Seriously, I like the Arch installer just fine, but I can tell you that the
Ubuntu/SuSE install rating most likely come from the fact that the gui installers
they employ are easy on the e
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 13:58:54 -0500
Denis Kobozev wrote:
> Dieter, is it possible to resize existing partitions via PARTITIONS
> variable in the config file?
don't think so. it's meant to make new ones.
> What kind of error do you get if you put
> incorrect values there?
You'll get an error th
On Fri 18 Dec 2009 17:54 +0100, Dieter Plaetinck wrote:
> > I agree with Dieter, that the install should be measured by speed and
> > automation -- but long ago I realized that there a whole lot of other
> > people out there that just don't think like me :p
>
> Don't misunderstand me. An interact
On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 11:54 AM, Dieter Plaetinck wrote:
> The config files are so powerful you can just add whichever
> repositories you need and add packages/groups to install
> whatever you want.
> http://github.com/Dieterbe/aif/blob/master/examples/generic-install-on-sda
> This should also an
1)
> This begs the question: does arch really want users who can't get
> through the current installer? Isn't the user base Arch Linux is
> catering to one that /should/ understand this?
definitely. in fact, i think our current interactive installer is
already too complicated/userfriendly.
there
I liked the Arch installer except I would liked to have a different
partitioner as I find the current one's interface to be quite
cumbersome in comparison to say the partitioner that is in the Debian
installer. Otherwise the Archlinux installer is very simple in my
opinion.
Best regards
Nicklas W
On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 06:17, Allan McRae wrote:
> Good thing you signed that message... it would be a shame if we did not
> know that "+1" was definitely from you.
>
> Allan
>
+1
Myles Green wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 01:40:24 -0600
Jonathan Temple wrote:
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 11:50 PM, David C. Rankin
wrote:
Seriously, I like the Arch installer just fine, but I can tell you
that the Ubuntu/SuSE install rating most lik
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 01:40:24 -0600
Jonathan Temple wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 11:50 PM, David C. Rankin
> wrote:
> >
> > Seriously, I like the Arch installer just fine, but I can tell you
> > that the Ubuntu/SuSE install rating most likely com
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 11:50 PM, David C. Rankin
wrote:
>
> Seriously, I like the Arch installer just fine, but I can tell you that the
> Ubuntu/SuSE install rating most likely come from the fact that the gui
> installers they employ are easy on the eye and they have put a lot of effort
> into
On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 12:50 AM, David C. Rankin
> Seriously, I like the Arch installer just fine, but I can tell you that the
> Ubuntu/SuSE install rating most likely come from the fact that the gui
> installers they employ are easy on the eye and they have put a lot of effort
> into automating
On 12/17/2009 01:35 PM, Dieter Plaetinck wrote:
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
2009/12/17 Ng Oon-Ee :
> 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.
Maybe "user-friendliness" was the wron
A large number of packages in Ubuntu install CDs are out of date when
you install it, so a long downloading time is inevitable. Things are
similar when install archlinux, I would prefer to install packages as
little as possible since a lot of them need to download updated
versions later. This is a
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 wrote:
Isn't the Arch installer always graphical, with a menu
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 wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> Isn't the Arch installer always graphical,
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 wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Isn't the Arch installer always graphical, with a menu and stuff?
>>> Just because you use your keyboard instead o
On Thu, 2009-12-17 at 20:49 +0100, Dieter Plaetinck wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 12:40:03 -0700
> Brendan Long 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
On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 12:40:03 -0700
Brendan Long 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 ins
On 12/17/2009 12:35 PM, Dieter Plaetinck wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 13:33:22 -0500
> Denis Kobozev wrote:
>
>
>> On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 11:55 AM, Dieter Plaetinck
>> wrote:
>>
>>> did that guy actually say that point and click visual installers
>>> are a time *saver* ?? is he out of hi
On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 13:33:22 -0500
Denis Kobozev wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 11:55 AM, Dieter Plaetinck
> 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
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 11:55 AM, Dieter Plaetinck 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
On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 10:49:15 -0600
"David C. Rankin" wrote:
> The article reads:
>
>
> Nevertheless, as a method of testing this exciting
> distro, the "Archiso-live way" is a great time-saver.
>
did that guy actually say that point and click visual installers are a
time *saver* ?? is he out
Guys,
Probably old news to most, but I was very pleased to see the good press Arch
got from distrowatch.com this week. See:
http://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20091214#news
The article reads:
With Arch Linux having become such a popular distro, often praised for its
rolling-release m
31 matches
Mail list logo
