On Apr 29, 2009, at 2:51 PM, Jerry McAllister wrote:
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 09:56:00AM -0300, Sergio de Almeida Lenzi
wrote:
hello
Well, after all that said, I would like to post my
modest oppinion based in experience from the market..
1) The people who use FreeBSD, or other OS, (the
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 09:56:00AM -0300, Sergio de Almeida Lenzi wrote:
> hello
>
> Well, after all that said, I would like to post my
> modest oppinion based in experience from the market..
>
> 1) The people who use FreeBSD, or other OS, (the end user)
> will never install the OS, the per
hello
Well, after all that said, I would like to post my
modest oppinion based in experience from the market..
1) The people who use FreeBSD, or other OS, (the end user)
will never install the OS, the person will turn on the machine
and expects an graphical interface appears in the secreen.
[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 s
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 other hand, for me
> > FreeBSD never
On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 09:39:38 -0400, Jerry McAllister wrote:
> I have done hundreds of installations and still
> find times that I want more information in the middle of things. That
> is especially true if I try to add some packages at install time.
I agree with this. That's why I always include
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
On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 20:33:46 +0200, beni wrote:
> What is wrong with fancy functional ? The two can go together I think.
Show me one example from the PC world.
> For you
> it may not be, but I would like it to be for me. And as to now, I don't have
> any choice : there is no fancy, easy, nic
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 installer just requires more resources,
> > mor
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.
What is wrong wit
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 functionality than a
ti...@freebsd.org
>
> To: Mehmet Erol Sanliturk
> Cc: Tim Judd ; FreeBSD Questions Mailing List
>
> Sent: Sun Apr 26 19:00:07 2009
> Subject: Re: Modern FreeBSD Installer?
>
> On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 14:52:56 -0400, Mehmet Erol Sanliturk
> wrote:
> > Last week I
uesti...@freebsd.org
To: Mehmet Erol Sanliturk
Cc: Tim Judd ; FreeBSD Questions Mailing List
Sent: Sun Apr 26 19:00:07 2009
Subject: Re: Modern FreeBSD Installer?
On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 14:52:56 -0400, Mehmet Erol Sanliturk
wrote:
> Last week I have installed Solaris 10 ( 2008-10 ) on a PC (
On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 14:52:56 -0400, Mehmet Erol Sanliturk
wrote:
> Last week I have installed Solaris 10 ( 2008-10 ) on a PC ( x86 )
> having an Intel main board . It did not recognize Philips 220WS LCD (
> 1680 x 1050 ) monitor and selected itself a text-mode install and also
> booted in text mo
On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 19:44:10 +0200, Polytropon wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 20:28:55 +0300, Giorgos Keramidas
> wrote:
>> I think this is a reasonable approach to the problem of which
>> installation mode to launch. The default is `user friendly', [...]
>
> No, the default is GUI. That's a big
On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 12:19:31 -0700, Michael David Crawford
wrote:
> I got cursed up in heaps on the debian-user list, because I had the gall
> to assert that just installing a service shouldn't actually start it
> running.
Security considerations apply here. As well as "should the system
recog
I got cursed up in heaps on the debian-user list, because I had the gall
to assert that just installing a service shouldn't actually start it
running.
I said that because I had done a full Gnome install on my PowerMac 8500.
What I didn't realize ahead of time was that it was going to install
On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 14:52:56 -0400, Mehmet Erol Sanliturk
wrote:
> For such reasons , personally , I hate
>
> (1) auto-start installations .
Dangerous. Simply dangerous. Something as important an the
installation of an operating system should not rely on
assumptions and guessings... "the user w
On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 20:11:36 +0200, "Neo [GC]" wrote:
> Just my two cents:
I may add two Eurocents. :-)
> 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, b
On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 1:28 PM, Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 02:18:55 +0200, Erik Trulsson
> wrote:
> > Better would be to check (somehow) for the presence of a keyboard and
> > a screen. If those are not present forget about X. If they are
> > present then the user at least
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.
The text mode installer:
- works on every PC, every graphics card, ever
On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 20:28:55 +0300, Giorgos Keramidas
wrote:
> I think this is a reasonable approach to the problem of which
> installation mode to launch. The default is `user friendly', [...]
No, the default is GUI. That's a big difference because
it entirely depends on the user. Imagine a bl
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.
> And what is wrong
> with some eye candy ?
Eye candy is wrong exactly when it reduces functionality
(i
On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 02:18:55 +0200, Erik Trulsson
wrote:
> Better would be to check (somehow) for the presence of a keyboard and
> a screen. If those are not present forget about X. If they are
> present then the user at least has a possibility of using X.
Deferring to the user all the decisio
>
>
> > I've also thought about the concept of a web-ui installer, even if it's
> run
> > from the local machine. The benefit of a webui installer is that you can
> > give the disk to someone, tell them to put it up on a publically
> available
> > IP address and just sit back and let it run. but
I didn't say a graphical installer has less functionality. I said it
has no more.
On Sunday, April 26, 2009, beni wrote:
> On Sunday 26 April 2009 16:23:58 Rolf G Nielsen wrote:
>> Glen Barber wrote:
>> > On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 7:01 AM, Wojciech Puchar
>> >
>> > wrote:
>> >>> software installat
El día Sunday, April 26, 2009 a las 10:59:07AM -0400, Daniel Underwood escribió:
> > nonsense. please stop this stupid discussion
> > at all
Sometimes I'm thinking in blacklist mails based on the Subject line in my
~/.procmailrc file; this thread 'Modern FreeBSD Install
On Sunday 26 April 2009 16:23:58 Rolf G Nielsen wrote:
> Glen Barber wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 7:01 AM, Wojciech Puchar
> >
> > wrote:
> >>> software installation CPU/RAM needs), run the dialog(3) interface. If
> >>> it's
> >>> a fast 686, default to a X environment.
> >>
> >> nonsense.
> nonsense. please stop this stupid discussion
> at all
Agreed. Only add GUI installer if it allows added functionality. Since
text mode can do everything GUI mode can do (with less overhead),
there is absolutely no reason to introduce a GUI installer.
Let's diverge onto discussing functionality
Glen Barber wrote:
On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 7:01 AM, Wojciech Puchar
wrote:
software installation CPU/RAM needs), run the dialog(3) interface. If
it's
a fast 686, default to a X environment.
nonsense. please stop this stupid discussion at all.
just use linux or windows (maybe PC-BSD) if it's
On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 10:23 AM, Rolf G Nielsen
wrote:
>
> And why is a graphical installer needed or even wanted? As several people,
> including, I believe, Wojciech, pointed out, it would just make the
> installation process slower without adding anything useful to functionality.
> Concentrate
On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 7:01 AM, Wojciech Puchar
wrote:
>> software installation CPU/RAM needs), run the dialog(3) interface. If
>> it's
>> a fast 686, default to a X environment.
>
> nonsense. please stop this stupid discussion at all.
>
> just use linux or windows (maybe PC-BSD) if it's importa
software installation CPU/RAM needs), run the dialog(3) interface. If it's
a fast 686, default to a X environment.
nonsense. please stop this stupid discussion at all.
just use linux or windows (maybe PC-BSD) if it's important for you.
___
freebsd-qu
On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 02:18:55 +0200, Erik Trulsson
wrote:
> As long as you have sufficient RAM (and you don't actually need all that
> much of it) running X on an older CPU should not be much of a problem.
> (Unless X.org has bloated really badly over the last couple of years.)
It has. It makes m
On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 17:45:49 -0600, Tim Judd wrote:
> If it's
> a fast 686, default to a X environment.
I would always encourage using a text mode dialog FIRST. Such
as
Your system is able to run the graphical installer.
Do you want to launch it, or do you want to work with
On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 05:45:49PM -0600, Tim Judd wrote:
> Reading the second half of these mailings got me thinking. Thinking of ways
> to detect what CAN be done, and what CAN'T -- based entirely on the hardware
> at boot. I think that we might come to a middle ground to get something
> workin
Reading the second half of these mailings got me thinking. Thinking of ways
to detect what CAN be done, and what CAN'T -- based entirely on the hardware
at boot. I think that we might come to a middle ground to get something
working. Here's my thought process right now, with hopefully ample samp
I think there's no need to worry (yet). Some of us use FreeBSD on
headless systems (which often don't even have the VGA and keyboard
circuitry). And of course, we install via remote serial consoles.
Anything purely GUI-oriented with no alternative would mean instant
migration to OpenBSD or another
On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 10:20:00AM -0500, Martin McCormick wrote:
> Wojciech Puchar writes:
> > as you can do everything easily in text mode, it just points out that GUI
> > installer is nonsense.
>
> The real problem happens when the GUI is considered to
> be all anybody needs.
I think there's
Wojciech Puchar writes:
> as you can do everything easily in text mode, it just points out that GUI
> installer is nonsense.
The real problem happens when the GUI is considered to
be all anybody needs.
A certain wide-spread OS has gone that way and many
times, one discovers that
a modern installer for FreeBSD?
If I can add my 2 cents to this entire discusion, it will be nice if will be
the TUI which is similar to TUI done in Debian Lenny installer. You can do
simply next and back option, you can easily choose betwen e.g ext3 or
reiserfs. It will be nice if we can also d
done a ton of FreeBSD installs the headless way, I hope any new
installer will not absolutely require a GUI. If it can run in a
GUI mode, fine, but I hope it will still let one connect via a
serial port and direct the process that way.
as you can do everything easily in text mode, it just points
As a computer user who happens to be blind and who has
done a ton of FreeBSD installs the headless way, I hope any new
installer will not absolutely require a GUI. If it can run in a
GUI mode, fine, but I hope it will still let one connect via a
serial port and direct the process that way.
On Wednesday 22 of April 2009 21:27:39 Fritz wrote:
> Hi,
> ... When are you going to build
> a modern installer for FreeBSD?
If I can add my 2 cents to this entire discusion, it will be nice if will be
the TUI which is similar to TUI done in Debian Lenny installer. You can do
simply next and ba
the number of possible partitions per slice is higher. I'd really wish
FreeBSD's bsdlabel(8) would allow for more partitions. The problem
here is not with sysinstall though. From bsdlabel(8):
that's isn't supported by sysinstall but you can partition a partition.
_
On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 12:10:50AM +0200, Paul B. Mahol wrote:
> On 4/23/09, cpghost wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 12:50:46AM -0700, Michael David Crawford wrote:
> >> The partitioner will allow you to create more partitions than the
> >> FreeBSD partition table will allow. Rather than givin
On 4/23/09, cpghost wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 12:50:46AM -0700, Michael David Crawford wrote:
>> The partitioner will allow you to create more partitions than the
>> FreeBSD partition table will allow. Rather than giving it the name of a
>> special file in the /dev/directory, it will name
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 12:50:46AM -0700, Michael David Crawford wrote:
> The partitioner will allow you to create more partitions than the
> FreeBSD partition table will allow. Rather than giving it the name of a
> special file in the /dev/directory, it will name it just "X". You can
> create
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 2:52 AM, Polytropon wrote:
>
> Let me state this: correct screen detection is already a problem
> with "the big" X, how should "a small" installer get this right
> with its limited resources? Mind this: The installer runs in a
> very limited setting, while X can rely on an
The partitioner will allow you to create more partitions than the
FreeBSD partition table will allow. Rather than giving it the name of a
special file in the /dev/directory, it will name it just "X". You can
create as many partitions named "X" as you like.
Then the newfs will fail.
I experi
Polytropon wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 10:00:24 +0300, Manolis Kiagias wrote:
>
>> The text installer should always be the default, IMHO. A GUI installer
>> should be selectable i.e. from the boot options.
>> I hope Ivan Voras finds the time to continue with the finstall project,
>> it looked
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 10:00:24 +0300, Manolis Kiagias wrote:
> The text installer should always be the default, IMHO. A GUI installer
> should be selectable i.e. from the boot options.
> I hope Ivan Voras finds the time to continue with the finstall project,
> it looked very promising:
>
> http://
Good ways to go (for those who want it this way) are PC-BSD,
DesktopBSD and FreeSBIE.
or ever better - Windows. don't use imitations when you can get an
original!
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinf
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 06:43:32 +0100, Matthew Seaman
wrote:
> So long as it maintains two other really useful features of the existing
> sysinstall: [...]
>* You answer all of the questions first, and only then does the installer
> commit any irreversible changes -- and particularly not an
Polytropon wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 01:59:53 +0300, Manolis Kiagias wrote:
>
>
>> Exactly. Modern install does not necessarily mean GUI. FreeBSD *needs* a
>> text installer to work on old machines, headless servers, serial
>> consoles and the like. That being said, there are quite a few ann
The problem is that if the graphics isn't optional (if it's the
default), the whole thing is *limiting* the actions you can do
with it.
like installing over serial port or without mouse.
both i use
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://
On Wed, 22 Apr 2009 17:07:54 -1000, Al Plant wrote:
> Gui installs have a tendency to hide things you need to tweak or alter
> to suit a specific need.
That's a point especially when you want to turn an older 150 MHz
P1 into a worthful part of the IT society. :-)
No, honestly: If the GUI instal
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 01:59:53 +0300, Manolis Kiagias wrote:
> VirtualHost wrote:
> > Perhaps he doesn't want to specify what the
> > partioning would look like himself, unless he prefered to do it
> > otherwise.
The installer does this already, as far as I know.
> Exactly. Modern install does n
On Wed, 22 Apr 2009 23:16:43 +0200 (CEST), Wojciech Puchar
wrote:
> i don't understand WHY something has to be better just because it's
> working in graphics mode.
The problem is that if the graphics isn't optional (if it's the
default), the whole thing is *limiting* the actions you can do
with
On Wed, 22 Apr 2009 12:27:39 -0700, Fritz wrote:
> As a big fan (and paying subscriber) of FreeBSD it pains
> me to ask this question: When are you going to build
> a modern installer for FreeBSD?
It has already been done. The modern installer is called "sysinstall".
It covers many actions: It d
Manolis Kiagias wrote:
Personally, I would like a text installer using a previous/next approach
that would give me options like:
- Install a Complete FreeBSD Base System => Subchoices: install
everything or select base system components
- Install Additional Software Packages
- Configure other s
Chuck Swiger wrote:
On Apr 22, 2009, at 12:27 PM, Fritz wrote:
Hi,
As a big fan (and paying subscriber)
Interesting-- I wasn't aware that the FreeBSD project had a paid
subscription model...?
...of FreeBSD it pains me to ask this question: When are you going to
build
a modern installer
VirtualHost wrote:
> Please, calm down a bit,
>
> The original poster only revert to a "modern' install, who knows what
> he ment by this. Perhaps he doesn't want to specify what the
> partioning would look like himself, unless he prefered to do it
> otherwise. The idea that he insist on a graphica
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 01:34:13PM -0700, Chuck Swiger wrote:
> On Apr 22, 2009, at 12:27 PM, Fritz wrote:
> >Hi,
> >
> >As a big fan (and paying subscriber)
>
> Interesting-- I wasn't aware that the FreeBSD project had a paid
> subscription model...?
>
> >...of FreeBSD it pains me to ask this
Please, calm down a bit,
The original poster only revert to a "modern' install, who knows what he
ment by this. Perhaps he doesn't want to specify what the partioning
would look like himself, unless he prefered to do it otherwise. The idea
that he insist on a graphicals installation is implied
-Original Message-
From: owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org
[mailto:owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org] On Behalf Of Wojciech
Puchar
Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2009 4:17 PM
To: Adam Vandemore
Cc: questi...@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Modern FreeBSD Installer?
>> as better than sysi
Adam Vandemore wrote:
Chuck Swiger wrote:
On Apr 22, 2009, at 12:27 PM, Fritz wrote:
Hi,
As a big fan (and paying subscriber)
Interesting-- I wasn't aware that the FreeBSD project had a paid
subscription model...?
Indeed, I fear my dues may be late.
I suspect the OP has mingled the Free
IMHO numbers and letters look the same in the scary dark place, a TUI,
or GUI. Better device detection, faster, more packages, etc. would all
be "better" and should be more of a priority than making a GUI
exactly. GUI don't need to have any priority, it's just don't needed AT
ALL.
if fancy c
as better than sysinstall.
Once upon time, there was a Summer of Code projects set to develop a
graphical installer for FBSD 7.x. I don't know what happened to it, but also
agree there is no need for such a thing. Sysinstall may appear intimidating
but it's really quite easy to use once you'r
It would probably help if you state what you mean with "modern".
Jerone
Fritz schreef:
Hi,
As a big fan (and paying subscriber) of FreeBSD it pains
me to ask this question: When are you going to build
a modern installer for FreeBSD?
I looked at the list of projects and didn't see it there ..
Chuck Swiger wrote:
On Apr 22, 2009, at 12:27 PM, Fritz wrote:
Hi,
As a big fan (and paying subscriber)
Interesting-- I wasn't aware that the FreeBSD project had a paid
subscription model...?
Indeed, I fear my dues may be late.
...of FreeBSD it pains me to ask this question: When are you
In response to Fritz :
>
> As a big fan (and paying subscriber) of FreeBSD it pains
> me to ask this question: When are you going to build
> a modern installer for FreeBSD?
>
> I looked at the list of projects and didn't see it there ... did
> I miss something?
This topic has been brought up ti
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Fritz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As a big fan (and paying subscriber) of FreeBSD it pains
> me to ask this question: When are you going to build
> a modern installer for FreeBSD?
>
> I looked at the list of projects and didn't see it there ... did
> I miss so
On Apr 22, 2009, at 12:27 PM, Fritz wrote:
Hi,
As a big fan (and paying subscriber)
Interesting-- I wasn't aware that the FreeBSD project had a paid
subscription model...?
...of FreeBSD it pains me to ask this question: When are you going
to build
a modern installer for FreeBSD?
I loo
As a big fan (and paying subscriber) of FreeBSD it pains
me to ask this question: When are you going to build
a modern installer for FreeBSD?
what is missing in current to make anything else?
if you have some ideas about extending it - just tell, and even better -
send a patch
___
Hi,
As a big fan (and paying subscriber) of FreeBSD it pains
me to ask this question: When are you going to build
a modern installer for FreeBSD?
I looked at the list of projects and didn't see it there ... did
I miss something?
Thanks
Fritz Kolberg
Phoenix, AZ
___
77 matches
Mail list logo
