On Sunday 26 April 2009 19:32:07 Polytropon wrote: > On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 17:06:58 +0200, beni <b...@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. _______________________________________________ email@example.com mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"