On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 04:29:37PM +0200, li...@wrant.com wrote: > On Sun, 20 Dec 2015 10:51:20 +0000 Tati Chevron <chev...@swabsit.com> > wrote: > > > On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 05:34:59PM -0600, Luke Small > > <lukensm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > >If installer GUIs are bad, maybe features like full-disk encryption > > >could be accomplished via lynx-like text -based HTML and/or > > >JavaScript that could write to cookies that the installer could > > >parse into commands? > > > > There are much better ways to implement text-based menu systems than > > using... > > Mentioning menu systems is an incorrect idea too, read bellow. > > First, what is this mythical "text-mode gui"? A text mode garbled user > interface, a new oxymoron of textual and graphical interfaces in the > same definition, or another gaseous non oxygen based substance? > > Probably, global usability inheritance, right? > > Usability means then it should be not only humans but also programs > who are able to interact with the installer. So, since stream editors > know nothing about this seasons' (or Luddite's) line drawing symbols, > and users barely see the information between these on another terminal > capability controlled device, just and only: > > plain line oriented interface works > > Meaning, this has been one unnecessary (if not totally ridiculous) > suggestion to begin with, followed by another one such "gold" nugget. > > Current installer is the gold standard in usability and the addition of > automatic installation & upgrade capabilities proved that already. > > http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/man.cgi/OpenBSD-current/man8/autoinstall.8 > >
Totally agree :)
