Re: Simplifying FreeBSD Installation
On 8 Mar 2004, at 22:44, Jerry McAllister wrote: It might help to have some wizards for network setup, but in the FreeBSD world, the network topologies are many and varied. So, just doing a MS predestination trick and creating a wizard that limits you to someone's narrow idea of a network would cause more trouble than just learning how to do it right. A couple of wizards to do a couple of very basic, no extras setups for say a dialup and a NIC hookup to an existing and well functioning lan might be useful, but FreeBSD goes so much beyond that that it leaves the world of wizards far behind. I like the point you make there. Wizards can't cover all the network configurations that some people may want. There is a simple wizard which will get you started, did the job for my workstation-cum-fileserver. But you're given the tools to do what we want. That's the value proposition for FreeBSD, it's meant to be configurable. Perhaps at the expense of 'friendliness', but it's never friendly at the expense of being open to configuration. No one is going to move to FreeBSD if all they want is someone to do everything for them. That type of person will not be swayed by evidence of a more powerful, better supported, more secure system. They are only interested in not doing anything. Most of them would prefer not to even have to stick in a CD or DVD if possible. So, FreeBSD or any of the other real OSen will not attract them. I thought that was a bit harsh. Different things for different people and I'm sure if all people could, they would love to prevent their computers from doing harm. You (Gerard) also should consider that there is a vast difference between the *BSD culture and the Linux culture, IMHO. There isn't the same desire to convert everyone, there's no jumping up and down screaming about the GPL etc. etc. The *BSD community wants the best OS not the most widely used OS. Being the best takes effort on everyone's part. Using a computer should be easy, but a *BSD is intended for a massive array of purposes. Many of which are hard, no other way of looking at it. My loose change :) James ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Simplifying FreeBSD Installation
> > Some comments on your comments. Skipping lots. > 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. I agree that the initial install time descriptions are weak in many places. When you come upon a choice and the built in "help" only says make a choice between whatever the listed items are and doesn't give any information about why one might want to choose one or another of the choices, it isn't much help.Now, I have noticed this same failing in MS installation help, but then it doesn't matter so much because you don't really have a choice there anyway. You're stuck with whatever you are preordained for. MS believes in predestination and they are god you know. > 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. It might help to have some wizards for network setup, but in the FreeBSD world, the network topologies are many and varied. So, just doing a MS predestination trick and creating a wizard that limits you to someone's narrow idea of a network would cause more trouble than just learning how to do it right. A couple of wizards to do a couple of very basic, no extras setups for say a dialup and a NIC hookup to an existing and well functioning lan might be useful, but FreeBSD goes so much beyond that that it leaves the world of wizards far behind. > 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. I have downloaded a number of freeware things in the MS world from places like Tucows.com and Download.com and have also downloaded the precompiled package of openoffice from http://projects.imp.ch/openoffice/ and found the amount of effort to be about the same. I did need to know a little more about my directory paths doing the openoffice install, but otherwise it was no more than doing the ftp and running pkg-add on the downloaded file and then running the setup program. Those are exactly the same steps I would have to take to install some piece of MS world freeware. Plus, somewhere in the installation, maybe it was in the XFree86 setup, I don't remember, it offered me the choice of preferred windows manager and it installed and did real basic setups for both afterstep and KDE for me with no problem. It also offered Gnome, but that was just too much overkill for me the last time I tried it so I didn't bother with that. Later, I wanted to tinker with my afterstep, so I had to learn where to find some stuff, but gee whiz, not everyone is a dumb as you seem to think they are. > 4) The installation procedure should offer the user a method of > starting KDE, Gnome or whatever automatically upon boot-up. The installation procedure gives the oportunity to install and prepare some generic windows manager plus Afterstep whose simplicity I prefer for most things (though I do wish it had anchors for each window I open), as well as the desktop managers KDE and Gnome.It seems to happily install them and all the related dependancies with only the effort of clicking the selection boxes. As for starting them upon boot-up, that isn't a very good idea. As you must be aware by now, when you first boot up FreeBSD, no one is logged in. A user must log in to begin any work on the machine. You can modify a login session to start up one of these things if you want although having the user type startx is not much of a strain either. Whether you leave it as startx or put something in .login or whatever bash place it woul
RE: Simplifying FreeBSD Installation
Hi there, 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, Marc > -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
