Efficacy vs. friendliness [Was: How to fix init - /etc/ttys?]
Gary Kline wrote: SOAPBOX Anyway, this is to the entire list: A week or so ago I loaned my 5.3 set to a non-geek friend who had occasionally been using RH. He brought the box of discs back and said it was too hard to install; that RH had a much easier installation process. True. So I gave him my old Ubuntu boot disk. He's happy with it. ---I realize how much smaller the FBSD hacker base is Still, having a GUI-ish intro makes sense in gaining new converts. I'm still here because this Berkeley distro really *is* solid. One fatal trap in 11 years I can handle. SOAPBOX It's a test. If your friend thinks FreeBSD is difficult to install, then he is probably better served by something else. There are many choices. All is well. The idea that FreeBSD should be altered to better compete in a popularity contest for new users comes up regularly on this list, but that idea is suspect. Many FreeBSD users see it as a feature, an advantage, that no GUI-ish-ness impedes access to the O/S. Which is not to say that the GUI-ish stuff isn't available, but the beauty is that it isn't in the way when you don't need or want it. Changing FreeBSD to be more friendly to new users would inevitably make it less appealing to the experienced users who value concision, efficiency, and direct control (who comprise it primary user base) and thus is to be resisted. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Efficacy vs. friendliness [Was: How to fix init - /etc/ttys?]
Pete Slagle wrote: Gary Kline wrote: SOAPBOX Anyway, this is to the entire list: A week or so ago I loaned my 5.3 set to a non-geek friend who had occasionally been using RH. He brought the box of discs back and said it was too hard to install; that RH had a much easier installation process. True. So I gave him my old Ubuntu boot disk. He's happy with it. ---I realize how much smaller the FBSD hacker base is Still, having a GUI-ish intro makes sense in gaining new converts. I'm still here because this Berkeley distro really *is* solid. One fatal trap in 11 years I can handle. SOAPBOX Many FreeBSD users see it as a feature, an advantage, that no GUI-ish-ness impedes access to the O/S. Which is not to say that the GUI-ish stuff isn't available, but the beauty is that it isn't in the way when you don't need or want it. You are confusing two things, to my mind. 1) The GUI-ness of th OS 2) The GUI-ness of the installer. I would strongly object to a FreeBSD that forced some kind of desktop environment on me or that mandated only controlling what software runs through smart wizards, but I think there is little danger of that. But the FreeBSD installer is somewhat long in the tooth. I don't think anyone would object to an installer that was a bit more straightforward and, say, easier to configure. Of course, it would have to keep the flexibility which sysinstall gives, but there's no reason why it couldn't give a more straightforward install path for first-time users of FreeBSD who have experience with other Unix-like OSes, or even moderately competent windows users. Once you get the hang of it, sysinstall is mostly fine, but really, making it better is not somehow pandering to the great unwashed. --Alex ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Efficacy vs. friendliness [Was: How to fix init - /etc/ttys?]
Alex Zbyslaw writes: Pete Slagle wrote: Gary Kline wrote: SOAPBOX Anyway, this is to the entire list: A week or so ago I loaned my 5.3 set to a non-geek friend who had occasionally been using RH. He brought the box of discs back and said it was too hard to install; that RH had a much easier installation process. True. So I gave him my old Ubuntu boot disk. He's happy with it. ---I realize how much smaller the FBSD hacker base is Still, having a GUI-ish intro makes sense in gaining new converts. I'm still here because this Berkeley distro really *is* solid. One fatal trap in 11 years I can handle. SOAPBOX Many FreeBSD users see it as a feature, an advantage, that no GUI-ish-ness impedes access to the O/S. Which is not to say that the GUI-ish stuff isn't available, but the beauty is that it isn't in the way when you don't need or want it. You are confusing two things, to my mind. 1) The GUI-ness of th OS 2) The GUI-ness of the installer. I would strongly object to a FreeBSD that forced some kind of desktop environment on me or that mandated only controlling what software runs through smart wizards, but I think there is little danger of that. But the FreeBSD installer is somewhat long in the tooth. I don't think anyone would object to an installer that was a bit more straightforward and, say, easier to configure. Of course, it would have to keep the flexibility which sysinstall gives, but there's no reason why it couldn't give a more straightforward install path for first-time users of FreeBSD who have experience with other Unix-like OSes, or even moderately competent windows users. Once you get the hang of it, sysinstall is mostly fine, but really, making it better is not somehow pandering to the great unwashed. OK. Good perspective. Seems like you have your work cut out for you then. I will be interested in seeing the result. jerry --Alex ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Efficacy vs. friendliness [Was: How to fix init - /etc/ttys?]
From: Pete Slagle [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gary Kline wrote:
SOAPBOX
Anyway, this is to the entire list: A week or so ago
I loaned my 5.3 set to a non-geek friend who had occasionally
been using RH. He brought the box of discs back and said it
was too hard to install; that RH had a much easier installation
process. True. So I gave him my old Ubuntu boot disk. He's
happy with it. ---I realize how much smaller the FBSD hacker
base is Still, having a GUI-ish intro makes sense in
gaining new converts. I'm still here because this Berkeley
distro really *is* solid. One fatal trap in 11 years I
can handle.
SOAPBOX
It's a test. If your friend thinks FreeBSD is difficult to install, then
he is probably better served by something else. There are many choices.
All is well.
The idea that FreeBSD should be altered to better compete in a
popularity contest for new users comes up regularly on this list, but
that idea is suspect.
Many FreeBSD users see it as a feature, an advantage, that no
GUI-ish-ness impedes access to the O/S. Which is not to say that the
GUI-ish stuff isn't available, but the beauty is that it isn't in the
way when you don't need or want it.
Changing FreeBSD to be more friendly to new users would inevitably
make it less appealing to the experienced users who value concision,
efficiency, and direct control (who comprise it primary user base) and
thus is to be resisted.
FedoraCore 5 certainly is easier to install. However, (due to a need
for some sleep and food in there somewhere), the install and initial
update is still churning along almost 20 hours after it started. Even
on a DSL line a gigabyte of update takes quite awhile to install. And
this is before I install any of the custom configuration needed to make
it perform its particularly needed job.
I noticed that FreeBSD 5.x was somewhat quicker than that to get up,
running, and up to date. But it does require some intelligence to
use it and bend your mind around the slight differences. It looks so
similar at first glance there's little clue that you're learning a
different language.
Of course there are the desktop BSD forks from FreeBSD that the fellow
could consider.
{^_^} Joanne
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
