Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2009 02:18:55 +0200 From: Erik Trulsson <ertr1013@student.uu.se> To: Tim Judd <tajudd@gmail.com> Cc: FreeBSD Questions Mailing List <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Modern FreeBSD Installer? Message-ID: <20090426001855.GA89151@owl.midgard.homeip.net> In-Reply-To: <ade45ae90904251645s350689fdj31164457172f6630@mail.gmail.com> References: <BLU0-SMTP493F2C64E33D39A37EF75DD8740@phx.gbl> <ade45ae90904251645s350689fdj31164457172f6630@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 05:45:49PM -0600, Tim Judd wrote:
> Reading the second half of these mailings got me thinking. Thinking of ways
> to detect what CAN be done, and what CAN'T -- based entirely on the hardware
> at boot. I think that we might come to a middle ground to get something
> working. Here's my thought process right now, with hopefully ample samples
> to example my angle (that was fun to say).
>
>
> It's based on two principles. First is the CPU class. If it's a 486 or
> 586, run a pure dialog(3) interface. If it's a slow 686 (and the fudge
> factor to define slow is based on Xorg's *recommended* CPU specs + the
> software installation CPU/RAM needs), run the dialog(3) interface. If it's
> a fast 686, default to a X environment.
As long as you have sufficient RAM (and you don't actually need all that
much of it) running X on an older CPU should not be much of a problem.
(Unless X.org has bloated really badly over the last couple of years.)
>
> Second (which ties into the first) is the hardware that was probed during
> boot-time. If a /dev entry (or even some sysctl) exists for a pci/agp/pci-e
> device, it can run a graphical installer. If it finds none of the graphical
> adapters, and sees serial ports, enable the dialog(3) as well. I feel like
> some pseudo-code might help paint the picture more.
>
>
> text-mode_install = graphic-mode_install = false
> if (CPUCLASS<=586 || CPUSPEED<=(Xorg-suggested-minimums+install
> requirements)) {
> set text-mode_install true
> } else {
> set graphic-mode_install true
> }
> if (found(VGA-graphics) && graphic-mode_install) {
> exec xinstall
> } else {
> # enable console installer
> exec sysinstall
> }
>
>
>
> I seem to find this very logical and can't (yet) see any flaws with doing
> this. sysinstall is built, we'd just need to maintain it and create the
> x-based installer. Run it with a minimalist (twm?) startup so we don't
> waste time booting.
That logic will often do the wrong thing for servers. They are the most
common case where people want to install using a serial console, but
typically do have a (fairly simple) graphical adapter and could run a
graphical installer perfectly well. That does not necessarily mean
that the person doing the install wants to do it.
Better would be to check (somehow) for the presence of a keyboard and a
screen. If those are not present forget about X. If they are present
then the user at least has a possibility of using X.
Also keep in mind that there are graphical adapters/screen combinations
where X will not work correctly without first tweaking configuration files.
Things have improved greatly here in recent years, but it is still
not perfect.
Text mode is still a good deal more compatible with all kinds of weird
hardware.
>
> I've also thought about the concept of a web-ui installer, even if it's run
> from the local machine. The benefit of a webui installer is that you can
> give the disk to someone, tell them to put it up on a publically available
> IP address and just sit back and let it run. but I ramble on....
>
>
>
> And also brainstorming now has brought me another idea about installing base
> with the concerns Jordan Hubbard wrote in 2000 mentioned in this thread.
> Again based on the hardware probed (this one being the amount of RAM in the
> box, in contrast to the amount of disk space needed to install on disk),
> create a in-ram disk as the staging area when you write to disk. The other
> idea is to use dump/restore instead of tar files.
>
> It is possible to have a 3GHz machine with 256MB ram as a valid combination,
> but when bin distribution is about 128MB in size, and kernel distribution is
> 128MB in size, and blindly running an X install -- not wise.
>
>
>
> Last idea is to do similar to what Ubuntu (used to) do. Provide a X-based
> installer CD and a console-based installer CD.
>
>
> I'd be happy to provide feedback; these were brainstorming ideas and would
> really like to see progress move toward a more eye-candy installer.
I fail to see what the point of an X-based install would be - other than
pure eye-candy, which does not seem very important for something like an
installer which is used so rarely.
--
<Insert your favourite quote here.>
Erik Trulsson
ertr1013@student.uu.se
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20090426001855.GA89151>