Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 11:40:38 -0800 (PST) From: Tom <tom@sdf.com> To: Capriotti <capriotti@geocities.com> Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: X based Free installation Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.95q.980106113410.22841C-100000@misery.sdf.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980106111025.0068aeec@pop.mpc.com.br>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 6 Jan 1998, Capriotti wrote: > Hey, folks. > > Is there any plan to make a X based installation for FreeBSD ? > > I've been thinking: It could make things easyer for those ppl - like me - > who have in-depth WINDOS background. ... > I was VERY frustrated when I first tryed to install Free (Back to 2.1 > version) and I just couldn't, because it wouldn't recognize my IDE CD-ROM > drive, and there was no clue why... then, when I was able to get the CD > working (long time and several attempts latter), I got very confused about > those new and hermetic concepts, info and language. And I was not exactly a > rookie. 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? Don't get stuck in the trap that GUI is better, because. If the language is not understandable, it will not become understandable in a GUI. > 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. Tom
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.95q.980106113410.22841C-100000>