On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 09:45:32 -0600, Tim Judd <taj...@gmail.com> wrote: > Earlier, I made hints at a webGUI install (the install medium would > boot into X, basic setup (VESA driver @1024x768, 24 [or 16bit] > depth)),
Why not a choice, 800x600 for laptops with smaller screen (or in 16:9 format for "modern" laptops) - or try to autodetect what is REALLY on the screen (instead of assuming a "standard")? Just a polite idea. > run firefox or another lightweight browser You're a funny guy. :-) When talking about lightweight browser in X, strangely "dillo" comes to my mind. Yes, I know, it's quite limited, but... > (even lynx in the > console if X fails to start) Very good idea. > on it's own filesystem or over apache. > Once network configuration is done, you can pull the data sets for > your choice of WM from the internet. A kind of "preview screenshot" would be good - you know, users judge from first sight primarily. :-) > I think this has potential, and would offer making it (already started > on it), but I think my statements went on deaf ears when addressed to > the broad public. Hmmm... I don't think so. In my opinion, it's a very good idea. You're offering functionality (like "preinstalled and preconfigured") in a matter that only PC-BSD serves today, and for PC-BSD, you need quite modern hardware. It's not usable for older systems, and you know how fast today's systems are considered "older". > So I'll ask again if anyone else would be interested in this. Yes, if you include WindowMaker and support for a Sun keyboard. :-) No, honestly; as much as I think you are bringing a good idea into life, I prefer to completely install systems myself. The chance that anything that I do not need to be included is too high. Of course, you are aware that you cannot cater all kinds of intentions with only one solution, that's impossible. But as I said, that's only my own, unimportant point of view. > The > advantage is that on this webGUI install, you can offer it (secured of > course) over the internet for someone more technical to do the install > or configuring, including the same post-install configuration that > sysinstall offers. This would be very interesting as long as it does not require too much additional services to be included and run. > Anybody else think it's a good idea? At least an interesting idea, and this is what counts. "Good" is always defined from the viewer's site. -- Polytropon >From Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ... _______________________________________________ firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"