Wasn't able to find something about this: Do I have a chance to do
direct installation of a FreeBSD into a full encrpyted environment where
not only /home, but also e.g. /usr is encrypted? Currently I've got such
as i always say the best installer is no installer, as it supports
ever
On 20/04/2012 10:21, Frank Lanitz wrote:
> Wasn't able to find something about this: Do I have a chance to do
> direct installation of a FreeBSD into a full encrpyted environment where
> not only /home, but also e.g. /usr is encrypted? Currently I've got such
> a setup running with Linux inside a c
Hi folks,
Wasn't able to find something about this: Do I have a chance to do
direct installation of a FreeBSD into a full encrpyted environment where
not only /home, but also e.g. /usr is encrypted? Currently I've got such
a setup running with Linux inside a crypto lvm and don't want to miss it
;)
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 7:42 AM, Stas Verberkt wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 11:24:20PM +0100, claudiu vasadi wrote:
> > >From my point of view, I would like to see 2 major things in bsdinstall:
> >
> > 1) ZFS support
> > 2) an option, to use GUI or text mode inst
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 11:24:20PM +0100, claudiu vasadi wrote:
> >From my point of view, I would like to see 2 major things in bsdinstall:
>
> 1) ZFS support
> 2) an option, to use GUI or text mode installer (similar to RHEL, CentOS,
> Solaris)
3) GELI disk encryption
that EVERYONE doesn't like about
> > bsdinstall, and get the list to the right people who can do
> > something about it. I mean come on You HAVE the source
> > Write something better, or, at least, get the stuff that bugs you
> > to the people in charg
will be
OK!
I've been working with BSD since 4.0, do you really think this is the
first time something happened where people were upset? Jeez guys
They'll work it out and we'll be fine, OK?
You have a point though, and some dignity and tact need to remain; and I
agree - if you d
On Monday 23 January 2012 01:29:23 pm Wojciech Puchar wrote:
> > because, well, I LOVE FreeBSD. Basically, I've tried out NetBSD
> > ONCE,
>
> actually i used NetBSD BEFORE switching to FreeBSD, short time after
> they released 2.0 and following versions. Got slower, unstable and
> bloated. Switche
On Monday 23 January 2012 12:17:33 pm Mark Felder wrote:
> I've recently been presented with new information: namely that RC3
> had sysinstall as an option (I did not know this, and I've been
> reading the lists) and that it was taken away for -RELEASE even
> though it was agreed upon that would no
On Monday 23 January 2012 05:18:01 pm B. Kyle Adkins wrote:
> I'm very new to FreeBSD but it seems to me that the installer is
> pretty much ok. My only wish is that there might be a little more
> info upfront somewhere, preferably in the installer somewhere, about
> setting u
I'm very new to FreeBSD but it seems to me that the installer is pretty much
ok. My only wish is that there might be a little more info upfront somewhere,
preferably in the installer somewhere, about setting up for a dual boot. I
couldn't find in the handbook, (that may be my fa
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 09:52:17AM -0600, Mark Felder wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 09:40:42 -0600, wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 08:27:32 -0600
> >Mark Felder articulated:
> >
> >>Just as you don't get to express your opinion about the government if
> >>you don't vote,
> >
> >Excuse me, but ar
PS: would like to see option "2" in PC-BSD too (maybe I'm just melancholic
to have a non-GUI installer :) )
--
Best regards,
Claudiu Vasadi
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freeb
>From my point of view, I would like to see 2 major things in bsdinstall:
1) ZFS support
2) an option, to use GUI or text mode installer (similar to RHEL, CentOS,
Solaris)
Other than that, I can use it just as I was using sysinstall, because we
always have ZFS on root (need to drop to shell
>> I first touched FreeBSD around 2005. The current insteller is much more
>> appealing and useful. All the people displaying elitist attitude toward the
>> arcaic installer which infact DID push people away from FreeBSD, I don't
>> understand you.
>so may i e
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 07:25:03PM +0100, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
>
> And IMHO sysinstall should not exist, while good documentation about
> installing BY HAND should be there.
I agree with the part of that sentence following the comma. That is all.
>
> Someone that cannot install it him/herse
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 07:30:57PM +0100, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
> >I first touched FreeBSD around 2005. The current insteller is much more
> >appealing and useful. All the people displaying elitist attitude toward the
> >arcaic installer which infact DID push people away fro
> -Original Message-
> From: owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org [mailto:owner-freebsd-
> questi...@freebsd.org] On Behalf Of Wojciech Puchar
> Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 10:25 AM
> To: Damien Fleuriot
> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
> Subject: Re: Horrib
I first touched FreeBSD around 2005. The current insteller is much more
appealing and useful. All the people displaying elitist attitude toward the
arcaic installer which infact DID push people away from FreeBSD, I don't
understand you.
so may i explain you:
Those who cannot install t
because, well, I LOVE FreeBSD. Basically, I've tried out NetBSD ONCE,
actually i used NetBSD BEFORE switching to FreeBSD, short time after they
released 2.0 and following versions. Got slower, unstable and bloated.
Switched to FreeBSD, which in every version is getting BETTER not worse.
I al
Allan
___
Erm, you have to realize the new installer was discussed at length here,
when 9.0 was still under development/beta/prerelease.
Alternatively, you could do like me and install entirely by hand:
- boot
I've recently been presented with new information: namely that RC3 had
sysinstall as an option (I did not know this, and I've been reading the
lists) and that it was taken away for -RELEASE even though it was agreed
upon that would not happen for 9.x.
I'll crawl under this rock now.
__
On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 09:40:42 -0600, wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 08:27:32 -0600
Mark Felder articulated:
Just as you don't get to express your opinion about the government if
you don't vote,
Excuse me, but are you just trying to look naive?
The wording wasn't exactly as clear as it should
On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 08:27:32 -0600
Mark Felder articulated:
> Just as you don't get to express your opinion about the government if
> you don't vote,
Excuse me, but are you just trying to look naive?
--
Jerry ♔
Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored.
Please do not ig
All of these complaints can go directly to /dev/null
Just as you don't get to express your opinion about the government if you
don't vote, you don't get to express your opinion about -RELEASE changes
when you didn't run the STABLE/RC/BETAs. You had your chance to help
improve FreeBSD for ev
Michael Sierchio schreef:
I've been using FreeBSD since 2.2.1, and IMHO, the 9.0 installer SUX!
It blow chunks. It's a POS. It's crap. It is a joke.
I hope I made myself clear. ;-)
- M
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org ma
On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 11:13 PM, Chad Perrin wrote:
> ... On the other hand, bsdinstall does get the job done, at least for my
> purposes. It just does so in a way that feels a bit more
> straightjacketed, and it rubs me personally a bit the wrong way. ...
>From my perspective, it replaces so
On Sat, 21 Jan 2012, Damien Fleuriot wrote:
On 21 Jan 2012, at 05:47, Michael Sierchio wrote:
I've been using FreeBSD since 2.2.1, and IMHO, the 9.0 installer SUX!
It blow chunks. It's a POS. It's crap. It is a joke.
I hope I made myself clear. ;-)
- M
Just
On Saturday 21 January 2012 12:52:31 am Damien Fleuriot wrote:
> On 21 Jan 2012, at 05:47, Michael Sierchio wrote:
> > I've been using FreeBSD since 2.2.1, and IMHO, the 9.0
> > installer SUX! It blow chunks. It's a POS. It's crap. It is a
> > joke
9.1 at least, so I'm still waiting for
that, but that too indicates a reason that someone might not be satisfied
with 8.2.
As I mentioned earlier, it seems to me (as an outsider to the installer
development process) that offering a choice between sysinstall and
bsdinstall for at least one RE
On 21 Jan 2012, at 05:47, Michael Sierchio wrote:
> I've been using FreeBSD since 2.2.1, and IMHO, the 9.0 installer SUX!
> It blow chunks. It's a POS. It's crap. It is a joke.
>
> I hope I made myself clear. ;-)
>
> - M
Just because you see things
On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 9:15 PM, Lyubomir Grigorov
wrote:
> Just to give thoughts as a younger user...
> Also, there was plently of time during RC to discuss this, I don't see why you
> all cry right now. To me, it seems you are afraid of change and getting out of
> your comfort zone.
I don't ha
Just to give thoughts as a younger user...
I first touched FreeBSD around 2005. The current insteller is much more
appealing and useful. All the people displaying elitist attitude toward the
arcaic installer which infact DID push people away from FreeBSD, I don't
understand you. Th
I've been using FreeBSD since 2.2.1, and IMHO, the 9.0 installer SUX!
It blow chunks. It's a POS. It's crap. It is a joke.
I hope I made myself clear. ;-)
- M
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.free
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 20, 2012, at 7:43 PM, gore wrote:
[snip]
> I also bought the newer 4th Edition when it came out. (Having Marshal
> Kirk McKusick do the forward made me happy, he's one of my personal
> heros. I also got to speak with him recently and I was almost
> speechless
hless I LOVE that guy, and he's so funny! The DVD 25 years of
Bereley Unix is something I'd recommend you ALL buy. I also loved how
nice he was. Marshal Kirk McKusick is one of the nicest, friendliest
people I've have the pleasure of talking to).
Anyway, back on topic; FreeBSD
On 1/20/12 9:36 AM, Fbsd8 wrote:
> Damien Fleuriot wrote:
>>
>> On 1/19/12 3:25 AM, Allan McKinnon wrote:
>>> I finally got to install FreeBSD 9 onto my computer and noticed that
>>> the installer is now different. It seems to me that it forces you
>
Damien Fleuriot wrote:
On 1/19/12 3:25 AM, Allan McKinnon wrote:
I finally got to install FreeBSD 9 onto my computer and noticed that the
installer is now different. It seems to me that it forces you into doing extra
steps that I was comfortable doing on my own. I really enjoyed the old
On 1/19/12 3:25 AM, Allan McKinnon wrote:
>
> I finally got to install FreeBSD 9 onto my computer and noticed that the
> installer is now different. It seems to me that it forces you into doing
> extra steps that I was comfortable doing on my own. I really enjoyed the old
On Mon, 3 Oct 2011, Michael wrote:
What are the valid filesystem types in Partition Editor?
Installer gives two examples: freebsd-ufs and freebsd-swap. I guess that I
can use freebsd-zfs but what are the others? And is that list accessible from
the installer itself (some kind of help system
Hello,
What are the valid filesystem types in Partition Editor?
Installer gives two examples: freebsd-ufs and freebsd-swap. I guess that
I can use freebsd-zfs but what are the others? And is that list
accessible from the installer itself (some kind of help system) or
should I look in external
--As of May 15, 2011 5:08:10 AM +0200, Cybil Courraud is alleged to have
said:
I met the same problem with my x220 which is not resolved but you can
follow this workaround:
1 - Plug an external USB keyboard
2 - boot with a memstick with 8.2
3 - In the loader:
set hint.atkbd.0.disabled=1
Hi Daniel,
it seems that there is a problem with UEFI/atkbd, since 7.2 and 8.0 work
without any boot problem (BTW that's not a solution because there is no
NIC support) and 8.1 and 8.2 hang.
I met the same problem with my x220 which is not resolved but you can
follow this workaround:
1 - Pl
I'm trying to install FreeBSD on my new laptop (Lenovo ThinkPad X220), and
it dies in the middle of the boot, using either the memstick image or the
DVD image. (That's all I've tried so far.) I'm using the 8.2 images.
The last two lines it shows are:
atkbdc0: port 0x60,0x64 irq 1 on acpi0
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 3:27 AM, Bruce Cran wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Dec 2010 11:14:22 +
> "Thomas Mueller" wrote:
>
>> > The argument is normally that even without a CD drive everyone has
>> > USB so should install using that instead of floppies.
>>
>> Not true on a very old computer (especially U
Hi to All! Sorry for my bad English...
PR 152892: Not updating /etc files in installer
FreeBSD-8.2-BETA1-i386-memstick.img
This problem is observed in mode: Custom/All distributions. In mode:
Standard/Developer or Kernel Developer installation completed successfully!
---
http
> the browser (instead of just pressing the keys shown on the
>>> screen) could make things look worse.
>>>
>>> On the other hand, with the ability of X to run without
>>> configuration on recent hardware, what's wrong with running
>>> X
creen) could make things look worse.
> >
> > On the other hand, with the ability of X to run without
> > configuration on recent hardware, what's wrong with running
> > X with a graphical web browser - if the user DECIDED that
> > way? Of course, this decision is the
On 12/08/10 21:27, Bruce Cran wrote:
On Wed, 08 Dec 2010 11:14:22 +
"Thomas Mueller" wrote:
The argument is normally that even without a CD drive everyone has
USB so should install using that instead of floppies.
Not true on a very old computer (especially USB)
That's w
On 12/08/10 11:49, Chris Hill wrote:
On Wed, 8 Dec 2010, Julian H. Stacey wrote:
[ snip ]
- There are small clones of standard vi, with executables
no larger than ee, could replace ee.
I think ee is actually a good choice for this application. vi can be a
little frustrating for those
decision is the FIRST step in the install
process:
Install method
--
T -> traditional text mode installer (sysinstall)
(this one does not have all the options)
W -> web-based installer in text mode
(typical for
On Wed, 08 Dec 2010 11:14:22 +
"Thomas Mueller" wrote:
> > The argument is normally that even without a CD drive everyone has
> > USB so should install using that instead of floppies.
>
> Not true on a very old computer (especially USB)
That's why I said "the argument", implying that it's s
> It's easy enough to find error-free floppy disks if you don't mind
> paying for them: http://www.amazon.co.uk/b?ie=UTF8&node=430460031 :)
> Bruce Cran
Are you sure they're error-free? I think most users would prefer USB sticks.
> The argument is normally that even without a CD drive everyone
remember correctly, earlier versions of FreeBSD I
> did install did have vi as default editor,
I don't think so. I recall FreeBSD installer had no screen editor
until Jordan looked for one that would fit the install without
executable breaking floppy size constraints. But jkh@ was an emacs
Bruce Cran wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Dec 2010 00:09:24 +0100
> "Julian H. Stacey" wrote:
>
> > FreeBSD has no instal...@freebsd.org list. Should it ? Only a few
> > people tend to work on & know the constraints of the installer,
> > many people over ye
On Wed, 8 Dec 2010 09:04:16 +, Bruce Cran wrote:
> The argument is normally that even without a CD drive everyone has USB
> so should install using that instead of floppies.
That's not an argument, that's a dogma. :-)
Especially when you want to use AT style hardware, maybe
older laptops tha
On Wed, 8 Dec 2010 01:58:04 +0100
Polytropon wrote:
> An example from my own practical use: I wanted to install
> FreeBSD 4 on a laptop that didn't have network or CD-ROM.
> I chose to boot from floppy, and then started the install
> process via parallel cable (printer port) from a second
> syste
On Wed, 8 Dec 2010, Julian H. Stacey wrote:
[ snip ]
- There are small clones of standard vi, with executables
no larger than ee, could replace ee.
I think ee is actually a good choice for this application. vi can be a
little frustrating for those who rarely use it, and it's downright
RST step in the install
process:
Install method
------
T -> traditional text mode installer (sysinstall)
(this one does not have all the options)
W -> web-based installer in text mode
(typical for professional users)
G -> web-based ins
On Tue, 07 Dec 2010 11:29:09 +, "Thomas Mueller"
wrote:
> I guess FreeBSD installation from floppies is no longer
> supported because of the difficulty of fitting the kernel?
I think so, too. My "interest" is to be able to boot a
system that does not boot from CD or via LAN. In this
case, st
On Wed, 08 Dec 2010 00:09:24 +0100
"Julian H. Stacey" wrote:
> FreeBSD has no instal...@freebsd.org list. Should it ? Only a few
> people tend to work on & know the constraints of the installer,
> many people over years have have made suggestions & comments, woul
one needs to be able to install from CD,
> > DVD or USB drive.
FreeBSD has no instal...@freebsd.org list. Should it ? Only a few
people tend to work on & know the constraints of the installer,
many people over years have have made suggestions & comments, would
it be more efficient
On Tue, 07 Dec 2010 11:29:09 +
"Thomas Mueller" wrote:
> Otherwise, it would be theoretically possible to install FreeBSD from
> a lot of floppies, but finding sufficient errorfree floppies would be
> practically impossible. I remember I had a substantial percentage of
> bad floppies when I
m CD, DVD
> or USB drive.
If the user starts with a blank HDD then the installer loads from the
CD/DVD, starts the web server on the disc and the user browses to the
machine as normal.
--
Bruce Cran
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org maili
On Mon, 6 Dec 2010 10:31:26 +, Bruce Cran wrote:
> > There's a plan to replace sysinstall with pc-sysinstall, the
> > PCBSD installer in 9.0. Currently the backend has been committed and
> > people are working on a web interface frontend to allow people to do
>
On Mon, 6 Dec 2010 23:13:19 +0100
Polytropon wrote:
> Does this imply that the installation requires running X
> plus a web browser, or a "hard to use" text mode web browser?
> Or is this intended to be used for remote installation only?
> Will the installer therefore be
On Mon, 6 Dec 2010 10:31:26 +, Bruce Cran wrote:
> There's a plan to replace sysinstall with pc-sysinstall, the
> PCBSD installer in 9.0. Currently the backend has been committed and
> people are working on a web interface frontend to allow people to do
> installations
On Mon, 06 Dec 2010 10:09:00 +
"Thomas Mueller" wrote:
> Is there any intent to modify, hopefully improve, the installer
> program (sysinstall) for FreeBSD-9.0?
There's a plan to replace sysinstall with pc-sysinstall, the
PCBSD installer in 9.0. Currently the backend h
Is there any intent to modify, hopefully improve, the installer program
(sysinstall) for FreeBSD-9.0?
I noticed something on the freebsd-questions emailing list about a
pc-sysinstall, but downloaded a snapshot .iso of CURRENT-9.0 mainly to see what
was there, not planning to install; am
Daniel O'Connor wrote:
> [ -current CC dropped ]
> On Mon, 9 Nov 2009, O. Hartmann wrote:
>> I try to install a fresh new FreeBSD 8.0-RC2 (from snapshot-DVD) on a
>> barndnew harddrive. As far as I recall partitioning a disk is now
>> done via gpart and the limitation of having only 8 (-2) partitio
On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 7:40 AM, Daniel O'Connor wrote:
> [ -current CC dropped ]
> On Mon, 9 Nov 2009, O. Hartmann wrote:
> > I try to install a fresh new FreeBSD 8.0-RC2 (from snapshot-DVD) on a
> > barndnew harddrive. As far as I recall partitioning a disk is now
> > done via gpart and the limit
On Nov 9, 2009, at 12:51 AM, O. Hartmann wrote:
Hello.
I try to install a fresh new FreeBSD 8.0-RC2 (from snapshot-DVD) on
a barndnew harddrive. As far as I recall partitioning a disk is now
done via gpart and the limitation of having only 8 (-2) partitions
from a through h except b and c
[ -current CC dropped ]
On Mon, 9 Nov 2009, O. Hartmann wrote:
> I try to install a fresh new FreeBSD 8.0-RC2 (from snapshot-DVD) on a
> barndnew harddrive. As far as I recall partitioning a disk is now
> done via gpart and the limitation of having only 8 (-2) partitions
> from a through h except b
Hello.
I try to install a fresh new FreeBSD 8.0-RC2 (from snapshot-DVD) on a
barndnew harddrive. As far as I recall partitioning a disk is now done
via gpart and the limitation of having only 8 (-2) partitions from a
through h except b and c is now obsoleted. When dropping into the
installatio
I would expect
>> ZFS support in the installer in the same expectation I am
>> expecting graid3 and gmirror to be.
>>
>> It's all about the status of ZFS itself, rather than the fact
>> that it works.
>
> Your point is also valid. However, our experience
> Valid point. I didn't make the clarification that I should
> have. graid3 and gmirror have reached the maturity and
> dedicated to the system, whereas ZFS is still experimental.
> When ZFS is no longer considered experimental, I would expect
> ZFS support in the i
On 8/14/09, Tim Gustafson wrote:
>> From: "Tim Judd"
>> I don't use ZFS, UFS2 works fine for me. I would find it
>> ridiculous to see ZFS support in the installer, but all GEOM
>> should be supported. Especially the raid3 and mirror.
>
> So, yo
Jason Garrett wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 11:48, Tim Gustafson wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I was wondering if there was a plan or time line in place to support ZFS
>> boot partitions in the installer. I Googled around a bit and found some
>> how-to documents
t;, yes. Most people don't need to be able to install FreeBSD
over a serial cable or parallel cable, but those options are included in the
installer.
> From: "Tim Judd"
> Also, since ZFS is a hog when it comes to system resources,
> works best on amd64, and many other f
On Fri, 2009-08-14 at 08:58 -0700, Tim Gustafson wrote:
> then there's no reason that the functionality couldn't or shouldn't be
> built into the installer.
With a few machines, yes. Once you get to 5 or 6, start building your
own custom internal ISOs, and maintain your co
7;s a silly answer. The way to get more people to use FreeBSD is to make
> the installation process as easy and complete as possible. If bootstrapping
> a system using the livefs file system is possible, then there's no reason
> that the functionality couldn't or shouldn't be b
reeBSD is to make
the installation process as easy and complete as possible. If bootstrapping a
system using the livefs file system is possible, then there's no reason that
the functionality couldn't or shouldn't be built into the installer.
Yes, a higher-level sysadmin can do it.
On Mon, 2009-08-03 at 09:48 -0700, Tim Gustafson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I was wondering if there was a plan or time line in place to support
> ZFS boot partitions in the installer.
No one has gone near that stuff in years. We don't even have gmirror(8)
creation support in there.
> I wouldn't recommend using zfs at all right now, unless you want
> random crashes and lots of missing data.. ESPECIALLY in 8.0,1,2
> versions.
I'm using 7.2 at the moment with a standard UFS2 boot partition and a 500GB ZFS
pool. My ZFS pool actually seems pretty stable. I did a "make -j 16
b
On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 11:48, Tim Gustafson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I was wondering if there was a plan or time line in place to support ZFS
> boot partitions in the installer. I Googled around a bit and found some
> how-to documents for setting it up in a hacky kind of way, but the
>
My zfs only system works fine but it based on 8-beta2 built around 16 May(
will be rebuilding soon)
The main thing to remember to do it make sure your have
zfs_loader_support="yes" in your src of make.conf
I based my install on this howto
http://wiki.freebsd.org/ZFSOnRootWithZFSboot#installFreeB
Tim Gustafson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I was wondering if there was a plan or time line in place to support ZFS boot
> partitions in the installer. I Googled around a bit and found some how-to
> documents for setting it up in a hacky kind of way, but the impression I got
> is th
Hi,
I was wondering if there was a plan or time line in place to support ZFS boot
partitions in the installer. I Googled around a bit and found some how-to
documents for setting it up in a hacky kind of way, but the impression I got is
that support for ZFS partitions is coming to the
n at the keyboard.
5) A beautifull installer is good for the newspaper that publishes
a "review" of
the Operating system (they must publish something to "sell"
to ...save their job..),
Have you ever heard about a "Leopard" installer??? do you know
someone who reinsta
ed to break???) you turn it on, and it works...
>
> 4) For those who install the OS in the computer, (some 1 in 10.000) people
> should make it fast and dirty I make an installer that install FBSD in
> 10 minutes
> with all the gnome, office, multimedia, with only one of th
00) people
should make it fast and dirty I make an installer that install FBSD in 10
minutes
with all the gnome, office, multimedia, with only one of the keyboard...
using ZFS, the system never breaks, is ready to use in 20 seconds... FBSD is
installed
in more than 1000 machines runn
[Sorry Rolf]
One of the things I absolutely love about FreeBSD
is the 'Minimal Install' option. I can't tell you how
fast you can install and boot the base system but
its F-A-S-T! Then, I can fetch latest ports and
install _what_I_Want_ - not what someone else
thinks I *might* want. This gets top
Jerry McAllister schrieb:
Second, that no one objects to a parallel installer being made available
as long as it is not the default and as long as it does not squeeze out
the text based installer.The only problem here is finding someone
or some group to work on it. Most FreeBSD developers
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 08:33:46PM +0200, beni wrote:
> On Sunday 26 April 2009 20:11:36 Neo [GC] wrote:
> > Just my two cents:
> >
> > Why a graphical installer? Shure, it looks nice, easy, modern and more
> > accessable (examples: Mac OS X, Vista), but on the oth
s why I always included a
F1
Help
in my "paintings" of how an improvement of the text mode installer
(and a possible GUI installer) should go.
Another idea would be to add something of value to the help
text. Let it be not only an explaination, but a suggestion,
just li
Polytropon wrote:
<...>
There is NO thing that works for everyone, a one size fits all
egg-laying wool milk sow; in Germany, we call this "eierlegende
Wollmilchsau", a device (or system) that does everything under
any circumstances, for everyone.
People are different, that's why there are many
is no fancy, easy, nice, modern and accessable installer.
You're mixing terminology again. "Modern"... okay, we already stated
that this is depending on defintion. "Accessible"... how accessible
is a GUI installer via a serial line or by a blind user?
> So why don'
On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 20:24:53 +0200, beni wrote:
> On Sunday 26 April 2009 19:32:07 Polytropon wrote:
> > On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 17:06:58 +0200, beni wrote:
> > > Why should a graphical installer have less functionality ?
>
> > hasn't been claimed. GUI instal
On Sunday 26 April 2009 20:11:36 Neo [GC] wrote:
> Just my two cents:
>
> Why a graphical installer? Shure, it looks nice, easy, modern and more
> accessable (examples: Mac OS X, Vista), but on the other hand, for me
> FreeBSD never was intended to be fancy, but to be functional.
On Sunday 26 April 2009 19:32:07 Polytropon wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 17:06:58 +0200, beni 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
1 - 100 of 300 matches
Mail list logo
