Modern FreeBSD Installer?

[beni]

On Sunday 26 April 2009 19:32:07 Polytropon wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 17:06:58 +0200, beni <beni at brinckman.info> wrote:
> > Why should a graphical installer have less functionality ?

> hasn't been claimed. GUI installer just requires more resources,
> more overhead.

Why should a GUI need more functionality than a text based installer ? Why 
can't both have the same functionality ?

> > And what is wrong
> > with some eye candy ?
>
> Eye candy is wrong exactly when it reduces functionality
> (instead of adding it). For example, if you need more time
> for an installation, require a mouse, or can't use your
> Braille readout anymore - then it's wrong- Or better: It's
> useless.

But why should a GUI be less functional ? I don't see why !

> > Guys, please, wake up, we don't live in the 70's anymore
> > !
>
> That's why FreeBSD is not following strange MICROS~1 concepts
> of how to do several things. :-)
>
> > I'm using pc-bsd. Why ? Cause of the easy and nice installer. It's as
> > simple as that.
>
> You value an operating system by how the installer LOOKS like?
> I'm sure you're kidding. :-)
>
> Honestly: People can't be that stupid. Oh wait... okay, I didn't
> say anything. :-)
>
> The point is - what I would have better said instead of the
> previous two paragraphs - a text mode installer LOOKS more
> serious. Serious biznis, you know? Servers, and workstations,
> and operating system. For work to be done. Lots of work. Ask
> people who work as admins, who keep mailservers running,
> webservers, application servers. Do they choose the OS by the
> amount of eye candy in the INSTALLER? I'm sure they don't.

I'm not a sysadmin, indeed. But it should surprise me a lot if a admin who has 
to, as you say yourself, keep every server running, need to (re)install a lot 
of servers on a regular basis. Then there is something seriously wrong. It was 
my believe that a server needs to be kept running, not being reinstalled twice 
a week (with or without a GUI installer).
And so a desktop user has to do it with the prehistoric sysinstall... And I 
don't value an OS by its installer, but as a desktop user I think I have 
already done a bit of (re)installations, be it debian, ubuntu, suse, or 
Micros~1 in different flavors. 

> > And before anyone says "do it yourself", "get a sponsor" or something
> > down those lines : if it is all about choice, why not give the
> > people/user the choice ? Now I don't have any choice : sysinstall or
> > pc-bsd...
>
> Or DesktopBSD. :-)
>
> > I'm for both : text and graphical :-)
>
> As I explained in an earlier post: If the GUI installer is
> (a) not the only way, (b) not an auto-default, (c) does work
> well enough even on older hardware and (d) doesn't make things
> more complicated, I wouldn't have any problem with it, I would
> even use it!

Nice to hear it :-) Me too !

> But please note that many users of FreeBSD are scared by the
> way other GUI driven installers work. Much time is needed to
> do an installation, and there's more emphasize put on how
> things look instead of how they work. So I can understand
> everyone who says: "When FreeBSD gets a crappy installerjust
> like 'Windows' and some Linusi, then I would look around for
> another OS that fits my needs."

A pc-bsd is installed in what, 5 or 6 clics (if it is that much). Same for 
windows or ubuntu. Text based installation takes more time i think. Finetuning 
and installing programs afterwards takes more time, but that is the same for 
all those OS'es, no ?

So I think we will agree to disagree...
-- 
Beni.