Why I can't recommend Arch or Gentoo

[Michał Zegan]

As said before, arch is explicitly made to be simple, and for users that 
want to play with it and know enough to do this. Arch is not for the 
masses, unless someone installs it and prepares before.

W dniu 22.09.2015 o 10:06, Tony Baechler pisze:
> OK, fine, but here's the thing.  As long as most people (yes, there 
> are exceptions) want a live desktop, I can't recommend Arch.  I've had 
> a few people tell me privately that they won't even consider Arch for 
> exactly this reason.  If it's a choice by the Arch developers, that's 
> too bad as most people are turned off by this.
>
> I haven't seriously looked at Gentoo in about 10 years, so if they do 
> have a live desktop image, I don't know about it.  I haven't seen it 
> on the various mirrors.  If there is such an image, please send me a 
> link and I'll evaluate it.  Similarly, if there is a simple installer 
> which actually guides you through the process like Debian or FreeBSD, 
> I'll take a look.  I like Gentoo in concept, but I can't recommend it 
> for the masses due to the above issues.  There was going to be a fork 
> which was going to address some of these issues, but I don't know 
> whatever became of it.
>
> On 9/21/2015 5:05 AM, Michał Zegan wrote:
>> The thing about no live desktop is an explicit arch decision, could 
>> even say
>> it's a feature, same about gentoo, but gentoo has, or did have at some
>> point, a live image.
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup at linux-speakup.org
> http://linux-speakup.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/speakup