On 02/07/2011 11:12 AM, Ng Oon-Ee wrote:
On Mon, 2011-02-07 at 11:07 +0200, Ionuț Bîru wrote:
On 02/07/2011 10:51 AM, Olivier Keun wrote:
What are your thoughts about this? I'm hoping to get an official reaction
from our dev-team, so we can avoid some of the confusion that is present
now.
t
On 7 February 2011 17:33, Thomas Bächler 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 _n
Sorry Jelle, i think you misunderstood, i definitely do want their support
taken place on their own forums. I merely meant they (ArchBang) should
explicitly _not_ tell users to seek support on our forums -- which is what
is happening now.
2011/2/7 Jelle van der Waa
> On Mon, 2011-02-07 at 10:26
On Mon, 2011-02-07 at 10:26 +0100, Olivier Keun | CAPSTONE wrote:
> I also have no problem with other distros using Arch as a basis, but the
> problem is that it causes a pretty big influx of newbies who have no idea
> how to configure and maintain Arch since they installed a one-click
> installer
We've had a few occurrences on the Arch forums where it became clear that
ArchBang actually ships some changed configs, so this could become quite
confusing i guess.
2011/2/7 Thomas Bächler
> Am 07.02.2011 10:26, schrieb Olivier Keun | CAPSTONE:
> > Maybe it would be better if a more fundamenta
On Mon, 2011-02-07 at 17:12 +0800, Ng Oon-Ee wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-02-07 at 11:07 +0200, Ionuț Bîru wrote:
> > On 02/07/2011 10:51 AM, Olivier Keun wrote:
> > >
> > > What are your thoughts about this? I'm hoping to get an official reaction
> > > from our dev-team, so we can avoid some of the conf
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 goo
On Mon, 2011-02-07 at 10:26 +0100, Olivier Keun | CAPSTONE wrote:
> I also have no problem with other distros using Arch as a basis, but the
> problem is that it causes a pretty big influx of newbies who have no idea
> how to configure and maintain Arch since they installed a one-click
> installer.
I also have no problem with other distros using Arch as a basis, but the
problem is that it causes a pretty big influx of newbies who have no idea
how to configure and maintain Arch since they installed a one-click
installer.
The devs have mentioned before that we want to attract serious, competen
On Mon, 2011-02-07 at 11:07 +0200, Ionuț Bîru wrote:
> On 02/07/2011 10:51 AM, Olivier Keun wrote:
> >
> > What are your thoughts about this? I'm hoping to get an official reaction
> > from our dev-team, so we can avoid some of the confusion that is present
> > now.
> >
>
> there is nothing wrong
On Mon, 2011-02-07 at 09:51 +0100, Olivier Keun wrote:
> On the forums, we see an increasing number of threads about ArchBang.
> Understandably so, since not only does it carry "Arch" in the name, it also
> uses the same styling [1], and supposedly users are told there to use the
> Arch wiki and f
On 02/07/2011 10:51 AM, Olivier Keun wrote:
What are your thoughts about this? I'm hoping to get an official reaction
from our dev-team, so we can avoid some of the confusion that is present
now.
there is nothing wrong with this distro and others distros that have
arch as a base.
Is good t
On the forums, we see an increasing number of threads about ArchBang.
Understandably so, since not only does it carry "Arch" in the name, it also
uses the same styling [1], and supposedly users are told there to use the
Arch wiki and forum for support.
People are asking if ArchBang is an official
13 matches
Mail list logo
