From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Jan 7 03:24:13 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id DAA17289 for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jan 1998 03:24:13 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from fang.cs.sunyit.edu (root@fang.cs.sunyit.edu [192.52.220.66]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id DAA17279 for ; Wed, 7 Jan 1998 03:24:05 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from perlsta@sunyit.edu) Received: from win95.local.sunyit.edu (brightmn@ppp-36.ts-1.nyc.idt.net [169.132.96.36]) by fang.cs.sunyit.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id HAA15251; Wed, 7 Jan 1998 07:25:27 GMT Message-Id: <199801070725.HAA15251@fang.cs.sunyit.edu> From: "Alfred Perlstein" To: , "Capriotti" Subject: Re: X based Free installation Date: Wed, 7 Jan 1998 06:21:37 -0500 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1161 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk Maybe if you could use libvgl something or other, it uses the VGA hardware which is on almost any system. this would make it so that anyone with a vga card could install freebsd instead of anyone with a vga card supported by Xfree... this might have a chance of fitting on the install disk... i know Xfree has a VGA/VGA16 server, maybe you could use that, in fact if libvgl stops being supported (i hope not) the X program will still work.... making this an option off the CD-ROM isn't a bad idea, if someone could setup freebsd so that this could even be done off of floppie via several disks that wouldn't be that bad either... -Alfred ---------- > From: Capriotti > To: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG > Subject: Re: X based Free installation > Date: Wednesday, January 07, 1998 6:32 AM > > At 11:40 AM 1/6/98 -0800, you wrote: > > Hey, Tom. I apologize for the misunderstanding I caused. Allow me to explain: > > > > How would a graphically install help? I don't think it would in the > >examples you've given. If the CDROM can't be accessed, why would a > >graphical install indicate why, and a non-graphical install not? Why > >would concepts (info and language) displayed in a graphical dialog box be > >lessing confusing if those concepts where displayed in a non-graphical > >one? > > I was thinking of a way to make Free more attractive for other kind of > users; As I mentioned before, my goal os making FBSD so attractive - and > easy - to install/use that even a secretary could do it. > > Actualy user buy things that are "neat". A graphical interface would make > things look beautiful. Placebo effect, I know, but it would help "spreading > the word". > > Of course a GUI has nothing to do with ease to install or the CD ROM > working properly. I was just sharing a couple of my experiences in the > installation field. > > >> Today's instasllation (2.2.1) is a bit better, more user friendly, but I > > > > Todays installation? 2.2.1 is ancient. Two releases have been made > >since. > > I was just mentioning that 2.2.1 was the one I was talking about; And, > Installation of 2.1 and 2.2.1 are not that different, so I thought that it > wouldn't have changed that much on newer versions. But I see it did, I am > glad to learn about it. > > But there's something I didn't understand: > > OK. We wouldn't be able to make one single installation disk (floppy) for > FBSD using the X interface. But what if the CD ROM installation ? Can't it > be done ? > > I am not THAT familiar with the processes, so I can't see the difficulty, > but, if you get the kernel up and running, and if you have the files on the > cd, why whould it be so difficult to put X running too ? > > I mentioned X, but it culd be a X looking GUI, just to make things LOOK > nice. It seems silly, but can make the difference when one is choosing the > working platform.