FreeBSD 9

['Frank Shute']

On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 02:36:29PM -0800, Devin Teske wrote:
>
> 
> 
> > >
> > > I believe the "difficulty in maintenance" stems primarily from
> > > the fact that the existing partition editor MAY have to be
> > > entirely rewritten to accommodate other root filesystem types
> > > (but even that's not entirely true -- if done right).
> > >
> > > Other than that, it's most likely just FUD and misperception
> > > that sysinstall(8) is either (a) hard to maintain or (b) hard to
> > > extend.  -- Devin
> > 
> > To quote the manpage for sysinstall:
> > 
> > BUGS
> > 
> > <snip>
> > 
> >      This utility is a prototype which lasted several years past
> >      its expira- tion date and is greatly in need of death.
> > 
> >      There are a (great) number of undocumented variables.  UTSL.
> > 
> 
> Perspective.
> 
> Let's take a look at the commit history for this manual.

Let's not. Let us discuss the merit of what the manpage says.

"There are a (great) number of undocumented variables."

From my reading of postings to this list and stable@, it was felt that
sysinstall couldn't be extended without a total re-write, that seems
to suggest that the manpage is right and is not FUD.

> 
> Try as you might, you can't go back far-enough to find when that
> message was even added. However, you can see where the message was
> tweaked slightly by a couple people:
> 
> SVN r49961 by mpp@ addressing PR docs/13148 and docs/13144
> 
> 	Prior to-which the message said "3 years past" (s/3/several/)
> 
> SVN r40275 by jkh@ (no PR mentioned)
> 
> 	Prior to-which the message said "2 years past" (s/2/3/)
> 
> So, literally for the past 15+ years, the man-page has said
> essentially the same thing "prototype ... in need of death."
> 
> I raise the hypothesis that:
> 
> a. The "prototype ... in need of death" message in the man-page was
> added by the original author, whom...
> 
> b. ...had self-esteem issues on that particular day (hence the
> self-denigrating remark about one's code).
> 
> I further pontificate that once the original author relinquished
> control of sysinstall(8) (whomever that may be -- since commit logs
> don't go back that far) that one of the 2-dozen-plus committers
> should have removed that message to quell evident propagation of FUD
> against sysinstall(8)).
> 
> Afterall, who's to say that sysinstall(8) was still a prototype when
> it was being used for several major releases in production and
> enterprise environments.
> 
> But instead, this entry in the man-page was not removed,
> year-after-year, but instead maintained (with no apparent rhyme or
> reason).
> 
> The situation is the exact opposite of what we're seeing with
> bsdinstall.  sysinstall(8) was added to the tree as a "prototype"
> yet was stable. Now we see bsdinstall added to the tree as a
> NON-prototype yet is NOT-stable or free of show-stoppers!
> 
> 
> > I welcome the new installer. sysinstall was a piece of buggy
> > garbage that gave
> a
> > pretty poor first impression of FreeBSD.
> > 
> 
> I think we have some very different opinions of what "buggy" is.

It didn't do what you asked it to do on occasion. It violated pola
wholesale.

That didn't bother me much. I'd become familiarised with it and could
work round all that to get a minimal system installed but it was a
pretty poor experience for newbies.

> 
> 
> > The new installer will get better with time.
> > 
> 
> The new installer is buggy, and the above maxim is something I'd
> rather not have to deal with when downloading RELEASE software.

I don't doubt that the new installer may be buggy in parts but so was
sysinstall and nobody was tempted to fix it. At least with bsdinstall
people are actively developing it.

> 
> RELEASE software shouldn't be released under the statement "it will
> get better with time". Releasing feature-INcomplete software that is
> known to be broken hurts the FreeBSD impression far more than
> sysinstall ever could/did. I feel your argument is an attempt to
> justify the egregious offense of foisting premature software on the
> community when in-fact it does NOT replicate even a fraction of the
> abilities of sysinstall.
> 
> IMHO.  -- Devin

It's a chicken/egg situation. Eventually you have to release software
that is possibly buggy/feature incomplete or nobody tests it and files
pr's.

Arguments can be had about whether it was released too soon but I'm
not tempted to get into them.

It's odd that sysinstall should get support now, it got bugger all
support when it was alive.


Regards,

-- 

 Frank

 Contact info: http://www.shute.org.uk/misc/contact.html


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 196 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/attachments/20120120/6a19cef2/attachment.pgp