Pete Slagle wrote:
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.
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
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.
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.
firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"