From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Jan 7 19:04:53 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA16359 for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jan 1998 19:04:53 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from misery.sdf.com (misery.sdf.com [204.244.210.193]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id TAA16350 for ; Wed, 7 Jan 1998 19:04:44 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from tom@sdf.com) Received: from tom by misery.sdf.com with smtp (Exim 1.73 #1) id 0xq83x-0006ti-00; Wed, 7 Jan 1998 18:51:17 -0800 Date: Wed, 7 Jan 1998 18:51:10 -0800 (PST) From: Tom To: Terry Lambert cc: capriotti@geocities.com, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: X based Free installation In-Reply-To: <199801072126.OAA08825@usr06.primenet.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk On Wed, 7 Jan 1998, Terry Lambert wrote: > > 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. > > I like graphical installs because: > > 1) They tend to be procedurally linear. > > Unlike a menu, which you can choose to do out of order, and > maybe forget something or accidently leave it out, when > something is procedurally linear, it forces the person who > is installing to go through the same procedure as all other > people who are doing the install. It seems to have been a design goal to not force an order of operation. Mainly, so that some functions could accessible after install. > 3) They tend to make it so you answer questions only once. > > For a network install, it always pisses me off that I have > to set up my network twice... once for the install, and > again for the post-install. If I give a computer some > information, I damn well expect it to remember it for me, > or I would be using 3x5 cards, not a computer. Huh? Are you refering to FreeBSD? If I enter the network settings for installing FreeBSD over the network, and that's it. > 4) They "fold" installs for the lowest common denominator. > > This may seem like a repeat of #2. It's not. #2 hides > _unnecessary_ complexity. Folding also hides _necessary_ > complexity. This is the difference between the Windows 95 > "Default", "Portable", and "Custom" options. Only in the > "custom" case do you even expose non-default possibilities > for even "non-advanced" settings. You ask the minimum > number of procedurally linear questions to get the user > up and running with the default settings. In other words, > "option + next/back/cancel" for all dialogs, with the > smallest possible number of dialogs. Express vs Custom setup. Tom