From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Apr 22 20:43:02 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: questions@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A19521065691 for ; Wed, 22 Apr 2009 20:43:02 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wmoran@potentialtech.com) Received: from mail.potentialtech.com (internet.potentialtech.com [66.167.251.6]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 222328FC15 for ; Wed, 22 Apr 2009 20:43:01 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wmoran@potentialtech.com) Received: from vanquish.ws.pitbpa0.priv.collaborativefusion.com (pr40.pitbpa0.pub.collaborativefusion.com [206.210.89.202]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.potentialtech.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4408AEBC3F; Wed, 22 Apr 2009 16:27:56 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 16:27:55 -0400 From: Bill Moran To: Fritz Message-Id: <20090422162755.6970680e.wmoran@potentialtech.com> In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: Sylpheed 2.6.0 (GTK+ 2.14.7; i386-portbld-freebsd7.1) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: questions@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Modern FreeBSD Installer? X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 20:43:03 -0000 In response to Fritz : > > As a big fan (and paying subscriber) of FreeBSD it pains > me to ask this question: When are you going to build > a modern installer for FreeBSD? > > I looked at the list of projects and didn't see it there ... did > I miss something? This topic has been brought up time and again. The general consensus is that if you need a fancy installer, use something like PC-BSD. There are a lot of advantages to FreeBSD's text installer ... for one, it works over a serial console. Any new installer would have to keep those advantages. It's also easier to maintain than a graphical installer. The general consensus every time this question comes up is that it could be improved, but it's currently "good enough" and there are other improvements that people think are more important. With a limited number of developer hours available, something gets back-burnered. The idea of a better installer has yet to meet with any resistance, though. It's just a lack of available time, so if you've got time and you're volunteering, I say go for it! -- Bill Moran http://www.potentialtech.com http://people.collaborativefusion.com/~wmoran/