From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Sep 3 06:15:26 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id GAA11117 for chat-outgoing; Wed, 3 Sep 1997 06:15:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fallout.campusview.indiana.edu (fallout.campusview.indiana.edu [149.159.1.1]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id GAA11110 for ; Wed, 3 Sep 1997 06:15:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (jfieber@localhost) by fallout.campusview.indiana.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id IAA09153; Wed, 3 Sep 1997 08:15:14 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 3 Sep 1997 08:15:14 -0500 (EST) From: John Fieber To: Amancio Hasty cc: Peter Korsten , freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: The GUI debate In-Reply-To: <199709030739.AAA00286@rah.star-gate.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Wed, 3 Sep 1997, Amancio Hasty wrote: > Sure my "floppy" holds about 600mb -- fill that up 8) > > In other words, is nice to have a unified install program however > given that we now have bootable CDROMS I don't see why everyone should > be subjected to the least common denominator. I think the word "common" is the key point here. It is fine to have a glitzy solution for the minority with bootable CDROMs, but if development of the single floppy install suffers as a result, far more users will be lost that gained. For the tasks involved in getting the system installed, a bitmaped GUI offers precious little except glitz, relative to the implementation cost. Once the system is installed and the configuration tasks take over, we have a different story, but we also have in installed system to run off of so the issue is moot. (Except, of course, for systems without graphics capaility.) -john