Why is sysinstall considered end-of-life?

[bobmc]

Ivan Voras wrote:
> Mark Lu wrote:
>   
>> I've read up a few things stating that sysinstall is at its
>> end-of-life and there are plans to replace it. I'm wondering about the
>> reasons or rationale behind this. Even today, sysinstall seems to work
>> extremely well as an easy-to-use, simple, and stable tool for the
>> installation of FreeBSD. None of the features seem limiting or
>> outdated to me. So, why is there a move to find a replacement or
>> something? Software shouldn't be replaced for the sole reason of being
>> old if it works, right
>> Two reasons AFAIK:
>>
>>     
---------------
A previous reply said:

	As I understand the discussion: among others, because there are
features people want to add that don't fit in the current model.
(Personally, I think there are also points where the correct user
behavior is not intuitively obvious.)	---Robert Huff

--------------
Then Ivan said....
>> 1. it simply doesn't even know how deal with the more modern features
>> like GEOM & RAID, more advanced authentication mechanisms (nsswitch),
>> and devices like sound cards (there are many more in this list...)
>> 2. it's way past what's currently considered "user friendly"  
>>
>>
>>     

The "end-of-life" phrase appears in one of the article pages and even in the
sysinstall man-page.  Perhaps someone started a rumour which became
gospel to someone else.

This page -> http://www.freebsd.org/releases/6.1R/todo.html mentions a
desired improvement (not replacement!) for sysinstall. Since replacement is
not imminent, perhaps issue tracking should be used to encourage and
manage modest improvements that would enhance it's appeal.

It is said to be a monolithic program.. perhaps it is trying to do too much.

    -Bob-