I understand what you're getting at, but I think that you may be overlooking
one important fact: FreeBSD is developed by people with a passion for the
operating system, who want nothing more than to make it the best they can.
They volunteer their time to the project, foregoing financial renumeration
and accolades, simply because they see potential in a project grown from the
ground up by people who love it.
You compare FreeBSD to Microsoft, but they're fundamentally different
operating systems. I agree with you that perhaps the installation procedure
should be more user friendly, but there are other areas where FreeBSD is
MUCH stronger than Windows. I have yet to see a Windows machine outperform
any of my FreeBSD servers under load...
That said, if you believe that FreeBSD needs work, why not get involved and
help to make it better? I have no doubt that there are other people
interested in improving the same areas as you, so why not lend a hand and
improve FreeBSD, so that everyone can benefit? :)
That's _my_ 2c,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gerard Seibert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, March 08, 2004 3:05 PM
> To: freebsd-questions
> Subject: Simplifying FreeBSD Installation
> I have read a few posting regarding the FreeBSD installation
> procedure. I thought that I might as well weigh in with my
> own comments since I am fairly new to FreBSD, although I have
> been using computers since 1984 (good old DOS).
> 1) The installation procedure is not as polished as say that
> of WinXP, but that is to be expected. It has been pointed out
> by others that while the routine does offer many useful
> configuration options, it fail to fully explain them to the
> user. The often-stated remark "Read the Directions" or words
> to that effect are not truly germane to this issue.
> The average user simply wants to plunk a disc into his
> computer and install an OS with minimum input.
> 2) While network support is robust, it is not easily
> configured within the OS. There are few if any "wizards" to
> guide the user. I have a simple home networking system. Three
> computers - 2 = WinXP & 1 = FreeBSD
> 5.2.1 - up and running. They are connected via a hub and then
> to a router connected to a cable modem. It is not the most
> modern setup I agree, but it is functional. Just to get
> FreeBSD to do a correct DHCP took a custom script for the
> dhclient.conf file that someone was kind enough to give me.
> Then getting the three computers to actually network together
> is another story. Say what you want about networking, but
> since MS is the most used OS available today, it would
> behoove FreeBSD to have in place a system to routinely
> network with MS and not have to install additional software
> and then be forced to reconfigure all of the computers to
> work with it. I can attest to the fact that most individuals
> do not have the time or inclination to go about that chore.
> 3) From what I have been able to deduce, the packages
> available from FreeBSD are not as current as the ports
> collection. Downloading something like Open Office or the
> complete KDE 3.2 suite and then installing it from ports is
> not something most users would envy. It is a time consuming
> and possible tedious venture. The packages should be kept as
> current as the ports.
> 4) The installation procedure should offer the user a method
> of starting KDE, Gnome or whatever automatically upon
> boot-up. Having to do it all manually, whether adding the
> commands to the proper files or simply using the command line
> is not good enough. The average user has little time or
> patience to read through the XFree86 literature in addition
> to the KDE or Gnome paraphernalia then go through the
> configuration process which requires him/her to know specific
> monitor, and video card settings, etc to get the system up
> and running. This does not even include the additional effort
> of getting a 'wheel mouse' or 'optical mouse' properly configured.
> As we are all too well aware of, such problems rarely occur
> in the Microsoft OS. In any case, at least the latest versions.
> 5) Most non-Microsoft operating systems are three to five
> years, if not more, behind in PNP technology. It is something
> that all non Microsoft OS vendors should place greater effort
> on improving.
> 6) Greater effort should be put into getting the operating
> systems more fully aware of various ACPI procedures used by
> various vendors. I have seen when FreeBSD fails to use ACPI
> on several models of Compaq computers even though MS has no
> such deficiency. The often-stated remark that MS is simply
> working around a bug in the code is a cop-out by the
> developers. If MS can work around a bug, so can other vendors.
> 7) The bottom line is that if FreeBSD or any other OS vendor
> wants to become truly mainline, they have to get their
> products to work on the same platform and perform as easily
> as Microsoft's operating system does. Once they have reached
> that plateau, they can then proceed to improving on their
> overall product features and usability.
> Well that is enough of my ramblings. I just though that I
> might add my 2 cents to the mix.
> Gerard Seibert
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to
> "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"