Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 07 Sep 2006 15:21:42 +0100
From:      Alex Zbyslaw <xfb52@dial.pipex.com>
To:        Pete Slagle <freebsd-questions@voidcaptain.com>
Cc:        freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: Efficacy vs. "friendliness" [Was: How to fix init -> /etc/ttys?]
Message-ID:  <45002AF6.4040804@dial.pipex.com>
In-Reply-To: <45001A3B.70800@voidcaptain.com>
References:  <20060906200225.GA35990@thought.org>	<44FF3404.2040405@infracaninophile.co.uk>	<20060907000141.GA36761@thought.org> <45001A3B.70800@voidcaptain.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Pete Slagle wrote:

>Gary Kline wrote:
>  
>
>>	<SOAPBOX>
>>	Anyway, this is to the entire list:  A week or so ago
>>	I loaned my 5.3 set to a non-geek friend who had occasionally
>>	been using RH.  He brought the box of discs back and said it
>>	was too hard to install; that RH had a much easier installation
>>	process.  True.  So I gave him my old Ubuntu boot disk.  He's
>>	happy with it.  ---I realize how much smaller the FBSD hacker
>>	base is.... Still,  having a GUI-ish intro makes sense in 
>>	gaining new converts.  I'm still here  because this Berkeley
>>	distro really *is* solid.  One fatal trap in 11 years I
>>	can handle.
>>	< SOAPBOX>
>>    
>>
>
>Many FreeBSD users see it as a feature, an advantage, that no
>"GUI-ish"-ness impedes access to the O/S. Which is not to say that the
>GUI-ish stuff isn't available, but the beauty is that it isn't in the
>way when you don't need or want it.
>
>  
>
You are confusing two things, to my mind.  1) The GUI-ness of th OS 2) 
The GUI-ness of the installer.  I would strongly object to a FreeBSD 
that forced some kind of "desktop environment" on me or that mandated 
only controlling what software runs through "smart wizards", but I think 
there is little danger of that.

But the FreeBSD installer is somewhat long in the tooth.  I don't think 
anyone would object to an installer that was a bit more straightforward 
and, say, easier to configure.  Of course, it would have to keep the 
flexibility which sysinstall gives, but there's no reason why it 
couldn't give a more straightforward install path for first-time users 
of FreeBSD who have experience with other Unix-like OSes, or even 
moderately competent windows users.

Once you get the hang of it, sysinstall is mostly fine, but really, 
making it better is not somehow pandering to the great unwashed.

--Alex






Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?45002AF6.4040804>