Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 00:10:07 -0700 From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@queasyweasel.com> To: <timh@tjhawkins.com> Cc: core@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Hmm... why? Message-ID: <634F4BD9-AD51-11D8-8CA9-000393BB9222@queasyweasel.com> In-Reply-To: <003601c4415a$dc14cfb0$6501a8c0@yourw92p4bhlzg> References: <003601c4415a$dc14cfb0$6501a8c0@yourw92p4bhlzg>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On May 23, 2004, at 11:46 PM, <timh@tjhawkins.com> wrote: > why does freebsd need a new installer? Why not allow the current=20 > installer "sysinstall" to just become user friendly..edit it and add=20= > new things to it... possilby even adding a graphical interface that=20 > works with it. It's all possible and correct me if I'm wrong--wouldn't=20= > it be less work? If sysinstall was just more userfriendly it would=20 > work very well. Go give it a try. Once you're done wrestling with the code for awhile=20= in an effort to "just make it more user friendly", you can answer your=20= own question. > =A0As for porting a=A0 Linux installer to FreeBSD... I do not = recommend=20 > it. there will be alot of conflict about the GPL vs. BSD licenses and=20= > we all know what kind of war that starts. I personally think freebsd=20= > should have its own installer under its own license. I think you sell the FreeBSD community a bit short. The issue is not=20 GPL vs BSD, and if there were a good, generic installation framework=20 that could be adapted to FreeBSD and was under the GPL, I don't think=20 people would blink twice at it. The problem with the Linux installers=20= isn't that they're GPL'd, it's that they're written to be very specific=20= to the distribution they're installing and make a lot of assumptions=20 about low-level Linux-specific partitioning methods and such. -- Jordan K. Hubbard Engineering Manager, BSD technology group Apple Computer
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?634F4BD9-AD51-11D8-8CA9-000393BB9222>