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, ...
_______________________________________________
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Reply via email to