Linked by Paul Hankes Drielsma on Tue 15th Apr 2003 06:40 UTC
I can't take anymore comments like "Debian/Gentoo/OpenBSD/etc. are not good/user-friendly because they lack a graphical installer." Searching the web, I couldn't find a comprehensive site describing the good and the bad about graphical installers for various OSes throughout the years, so in this article I hope to debunk a few of the myths on the basis of my own personal and professional experience.
Permalink for comment
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
First of all, did any of you GUI - addicts ever install win2k/xp (or even Linux)?
The first stage of the Windows installation uses a text-based installer for partitioning and such, the second stage uses a GUI, but there are about no options, the only thing you can do is set the time zone and country, enter your serial no.and give the machine a name - and that's about all.
Afterward, you're waiting about 1 hour 'till the setup's finished, than you start editing sysoc.inf to uninstall all those stupid games and stuff - and the system is still not really configured.
Pop in your SuSE Linux DVD, power up your PC, and you get a real GUI install, with partitioning, language selection, user management, hardware config, software selection etc. - and setting up a complete system, including KDE, development stuff, OpenOffice and stuff takes about 30min - or simply use the defaults, so you'll be ready in 20min.
Just go ahead and tell me sh*t like: 'The Windows installer is easier/ prettier/ faster/ more powerfull/ whatever than Linux could ever be, therefore Linux is not for the desktop' - believe me, you'll just look stupid...