Date: Wed, 7 Jan 1998 18:59:34 -0800 (PST) From: Tom <tom@sdf.com> To: Capriotti <capriotti@geocities.com> Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: X based Free installation Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.95q.980107185231.26495D-100000@misery.sdf.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19980107082705.0094e100@pop.mpc.com.br>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 7 Jan 1998, Capriotti wrote: > > How would a graphically install help? I don't think it would in the > >examples you've given. If the CDROM can't be accessed, why would a > >graphical install indicate why, and a non-graphical install not? Why > >would concepts (info and language) displayed in a graphical dialog box be > >lessing confusing if those concepts where displayed in a non-graphical > >one? > > I was thinking of a way to make Free more attractive for other kind of > users; As I mentioned before, my goal os making FBSD so attractive - and > easy - to install/use that even a secretary could do it. A good first step would be for your CDROM to work with the installer. My point is that any install is meaningless if it doesn't work. > Actualy user buy things that are "neat". A graphical interface would make > things look beautiful. Placebo effect, I know, but it would help "spreading > the word". GUI is doable, you just can't do it during the install. It is chicken and egg problem. You can't get a nice X display, until you've installed an X server for your video card, and lots of support software. ... > >> Today's instasllation (2.2.1) is a bit better, more user friendly, but I > > > > Todays installation? 2.2.1 is ancient. Two releases have been made > >since. > > I was just mentioning that 2.2.1 was the one I was talking about; And, > Installation of 2.1 and 2.2.1 are not that different, so I thought that it > wouldn't have changed that much on newer versions. But I see it did, I am > glad to learn about it. Well, sysinstall _looks_ the same, but it is more difficult to get stuck. IDE CDROMs work better. > But there's something I didn't understand: > > OK. We wouldn't be able to make one single installation disk (floppy) for > FBSD using the X interface. But what if the CD ROM installation ? Can't it > be done ? X is large. It wouldn't fit on single disk. CD ROM would work (have a fully installed X on CD with support for all different video adapters. But what about non-CDROM installs? FTP installs are very popular. > I am not THAT familiar with the processes, so I can't see the difficulty, > but, if you get the kernel up and running, and if you have the files on the > cd, why whould it be so difficult to put X running too ? Non-CDROM installs is the biggy. Tom
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.95q.980107185231.26495D-100000>