Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 05:13:33 -0800 From: Josh Paetzel <josh@tcbug.org> To: Polytropon <freebsd@edvax.de> Cc: "freebsd-questions@freebsd.org" <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>, Da Rock <freebsd-questions@herveybayaustralia.com.au> Subject: Re: Installer program for FreeBSD-9.0? Message-ID: <5135F7E7-5B4B-4D55-9652-FB09CD8D485B@tcbug.org> In-Reply-To: <20101209060725.e606cb47.freebsd@edvax.de> References: <20101207114521.GA68479@muon.cran.org.uk> <201012072309.oB7N9OMG072737@fire.js.berklix.net> <20101208022629.7d106bab.freebsd@edvax.de> <4CFF8C9B.4060804@herveybayaustralia.com.au> <20101209060725.e606cb47.freebsd@edvax.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Dec 8, 2010, at 9:07 PM, Polytropon <freebsd@edvax.de> wrote: > On Wed, 08 Dec 2010 23:48:11 +1000, Da Rock <freebsd-questions@herveybayau= stralia.com.au> wrote: >> On 12/08/10 11:26, Polytropon wrote: >>> On Wed, 08 Dec 2010 00:09:24 +0100, "Julian H. Stacey"<jhs@berklix.com> = wrote: >>>=20 >>>> My comments/ wish list >>>> - One text mode (non bitmap graphical) browser: /usr/ports/www/l= ynx >>>>=20 >>> The lynx browser, due to its "special" key handling, does not >>> appeal to novice users. NO text mode browser gives a "first >>> sight effect" that will "convince" a user he's installing a >>> modern OS. Sounds stupid, I know. >>>=20 >>> As I said, the way the user interacts with the browser does >>> determine how fast he gets through the installation. Learning >>> the browser (instead of just pressing the keys shown on the >>> screen) could make things look worse. >>>=20 >>> On the other hand, with the ability of X to run without >>> configuration on recent hardware, what's wrong with running >>> X with a graphical web browser - if the user DECIDED that >>> way? Of course, this decision is the FIRST step in the install >>> process: >>>=20 >>> Install method >>> -------------- >>> T -> traditional text mode installer (sysinstall) >>> (this one does not have all the options) >>> W -> web-based installer in text mode >>> (typical for professional users) >>> G -> web-based installer in graphics mode >>> (typical for novice users) >>> R -> remote installation >>> (just starts the server) >>> S -> shell >>> (dialog shell access to live system) >>>=20 >>> Enter choice: _ >>>=20 >>> Just a simple idea. >>>=20 >>>=20 >>>=20 >>>=20 >> I like that approach- works for me anyway... >=20 > Let me add that it would be good to default do an action > after a certain time (e. g. 60 seconds). This default should > be the preparation for remote installation as this is the > obvious choice when no interaction is done - because it > maybe is not possible (like for headless servers). So > you put in the installation media (CD or USB stick), wait > a minute, and then remotely access the installer. >=20 >=20 >=20 >> Accessibility should be foremost at this level and above. >=20 > I would also like to see it that way; sadly, "market share" > oriented development doesn't share this thought. You can > make money on all the healthy users, there's plenty of > them. Users with disabilites are uninteresting, from a > "marketing" point of view. Users in niche markets are > uninteresting, too. >=20 >=20 >=20 >> The legalities=20 >> themselves are becoming hairy these days, and considering the point that=20= >> we are trying to push accessibility in terms of applications (such as=20 >> issues with flash, to name one) using physical accessibility as a=20 >> parallel argument we should be setting an example as well. >=20 > Accessibility on the web is just one point. Operating systems, > the backbones of all the dancing bunnies, should be a good > example of how to make information accessible to the widest > amount of people. This includes the idea of NOT cutting out > those who do not have the ability to access a graphical > installer: Not because they don't want to use it, but because > they don't have the means to access it. >=20 >=20 >=20 >> That said, there is no reason why can't make it look as pretty as we can=20= >> without compromising this principle :) >=20 > GUI installer, remote access and not rising barriers does not > contradict. If done properly, it can benefit both the professional > users AND those who judge at first sight. >=20 >=20 >=20 > --=20 > Polytropon I'm going to weigh in now. :) If you want to install FreeBSD using X with a pretty GUI, you can do that to= day. Use a PC-BSD install DVD. There is a radio button in the installer to m= ake it install plain FreeBSD.=20 pc-sysinstall is in HEAD now, and it is completely functional. It's been doi= ng PC-BSD and FreeBSD installs for a long time now.=20 The way it works is it does an install based on a config file, so really the= work on the front end is building a tool that will build a config file. The real issue is that you really want a volume and disk layout "wizard" of s= orts. The ability to take some disks, maybe make a gmirror, or a ZFS RAIDZ, o= r even use glabel on a single disk, then layout some filesystems on that, th= en do the install.=20 It turns out that this is really simple to do in a web app, and not quite so= simple to do in curses. You want things like constraining choices based on p= revious input. For instance you can't make a RAID-Z from two devices.=20 As far as floppy based installs and all of that, the last successful install= via floppy that I can find documented was in the 3.x era, in the 90's. That= was over 10 years ago. Booting from floppy is pretty rare these days, and I= submit that a system that has no choice but to boot from floppy isn't going= to be able to run FreeBSD 9 anyways. My Pentium Pro can't boot anything new= er than 4.11, and *that* has USB ports.=20 Anything with a chance of running FreeBSD 9 can boot from USB or PXE. If it'= s a small modern embedded system you're using dd to put an image on it's fla= sh card. Other situations fall in the category of really rare edge cases, a= nd I'm ok with making those people jump through hoops to get FreeBSD running= on their classic pentium if it makes life easier for people attempting to d= o realistic things. I'm a huge proponent of not mixing and matching hardware= and software generations. FreeBSD 2.1.5 ran well enough on our 386's that w= e used them as nameservers for thousands of users at my ISP. FreeBSD 9 works= great on my dual Nehalem. I probably would be as unhappy with FreeBSD 2.x o= n my dual Nehalem as I would be with FreeBSD 9 on a 386....oh, right, it won= 't even install in either case, let alone run.=20 We are very aware that there are people doing CLI installs. Remote serial po= rt, etc, etc, etc, and we are not going to go down a road that raises the ba= rrier to entry very high for them. I think sysinstall proves you can set the= bar pretty high though, and people will figure out a way to make it work.=20= (Try and install FreeBSD to a RAID-Z for example, or use glabel, or install t= o GELI....) At the end of the day, pc-sysinstall needs a plain text config file that you= can write by hand. (It's very well documented) So all this front end talk i= s really about what's the best way to build a config file.=20 Thanks, Josh "Feedback Welcome" Paetzel=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5135F7E7-5B4B-4D55-9652-FB09CD8D485B>