Pete Slagle wrote:

Gary Kline wrote:
        Anyway, this is to the entire list:  A week or so ago
        I loaned my 5.3 set to a non-geek friend who had occasionally
        been using RH.  He brought the box of discs back and said it
        was too hard to install; that RH had a much easier installation
        process.  True.  So I gave him my old Ubuntu boot disk.  He's
        happy with it.  ---I realize how much smaller the FBSD hacker
base is.... Still, having a GUI-ish intro makes sense in gaining new converts. I'm still here because this Berkeley
        distro really *is* solid.  One fatal trap in 11 years I
        can handle.
        < SOAPBOX>

Many FreeBSD users see it as a feature, an advantage, that no
"GUI-ish"-ness impedes access to the O/S. Which is not to say that the
GUI-ish stuff isn't available, but the beauty is that it isn't in the
way when you don't need or want it.

You are confusing two things, to my mind. 1) The GUI-ness of th OS 2) The GUI-ness of the installer. I would strongly object to a FreeBSD that forced some kind of "desktop environment" on me or that mandated only controlling what software runs through "smart wizards", but I think there is little danger of that.

But the FreeBSD installer is somewhat long in the tooth. I don't think anyone would object to an installer that was a bit more straightforward and, say, easier to configure. Of course, it would have to keep the flexibility which sysinstall gives, but there's no reason why it couldn't give a more straightforward install path for first-time users of FreeBSD who have experience with other Unix-like OSes, or even moderately competent windows users.

Once you get the hang of it, sysinstall is mostly fine, but really, making it better is not somehow pandering to the great unwashed.


_______________________________________________ mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Reply via email to