Ain't most of these reviews a bit... general/ blank/ obvious/ same old...
I mean its like any1 can write those "how I installed arch" reviews
Would be great to see more indepth / pro reviews with a well thought out "scoring" system:
-Packagemanager vs others
-Speed vs others
-how up to date vs others
-Stability vs others
-Technical merit vs others
-ease of use/ administering vs others
and so on and so on
Nice review you got tho
Yeah a thing i notice too in nearly every reviews. Just boring to read because it is the installation and what applications are brought with it by default (not arch or other small distros of course).
After reading you ask yourself: "Ok, install went fine (as it should tbh) and there are some applications for most common tasks or sth more... what now?" I mean, as Mikko777 mentioned, just going a bit more into detail, showing what are the key features are (in detail) and maybe a comparison to others would be nice and worth the reading.
edit: funny thing is: the post from 'dosenpfand' in the review comments said more about arch as the whole review itself
Last edited by detto (2007-05-04 10:50:02)