Hi, let me add a couple of thoughts here, not offending :)
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 21:38:13 +0200 Matthias-Christian Ott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Daniel Zilli schrieb: > > > Dear friends, > > > > Is a pleasure talk with you. > > > > I am Daniel Zilli, an active member from Brazil Open Source community. I > > am specialized in Free Software and Linux Operation System with tree > > books released. > > > > During the last two months I am being using and analise the Arch Linux > > distro. To be honest with you, I am little amazing about the Arch. > > During this two months of test the Arch showed be a stable, simple and > > efficient distro. I am really do not see big different between Arch and > > the big players of market. > > > > So, with intention to help this distro become more and more mature, I am > > will draw some points that can help the distro give a big step to the > > hall of fame. Thanks :) > > > > 1) Arch need urgent a new installer! We know that the current works, but > > this today is not enough. We need an intuitive, easy and efficient > > installer. If you think a little, we can see that the new users > > make the opinion about a distro during the install process. So, if the > > install process is difficult, they will think that the distro is > > difficult too. Think about this! > > If you allow me, I can show to you guys a new > > installer in a fews days. (now you know about my syntax errors :-) ). > > Plus. I can add support to i18n in this installer too. What does the devs think about the installer: http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=10142&page=8 See Aureliens statement, contributions are welcome, but note the opinions quoted there, we have reasons for the installer. To sum it up a bit, users who "survive" the installer will probably be way better prepared for adminstering their system. But hey, maybe your installer will blow our minds :) > > > > 2) One thing that made me very happy in the Arch, was the package > > manager. Absolutally pacman is one of the best. But, has just one big > > defect. The extension. The extension "pkg.tar.gz" is too long! The > > most famous package manager using short extension like rpm, deb and > > tgz. Look the difference: > > > > bash-3.0-3.pkg.tar.gz > > bash-3.0-3.rpm > > bash-3.0-3.deb > > bash-3.0-3.tgz > > > > Be more direct is essential. We know that pacman is a tar.gz based, but > > we are not force to use tar.gz in the extension. And more. This > > extension can be confuse to the new user that see "tar.gz" in the end. > > Someones will not associate with a package manager. My suggestion is > > use a new extension like "pac". From my point of view, these are cosmetics ... and I know this is how many people make lots of money. But see your argument, tar.gz confuses user with gzipped tarballs? A package _is_ a gzipped tarball! And it can be opened, investigated and manipulated by any tar capable application. Moreover, the mime-type is automatically detected correctly by most applications. > > 3) Arch need more press. If the people don't know about the Arch, how > > will they use ? We need that Arch become famous. Why? To bring more > > people to use and contribute to the distro. For this happen here my > > suggestion: Well, if you have a masterplan for this :) > > For now is that! Thanks for your interest -tobbi _______________________________________________ arch mailing list [email protected] http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
