Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 09:46:28 -0700 From: Chad Perrin <perrin@apotheon.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD 9 Message-ID: <20120119164628.GC21488@hemlock.hydra> In-Reply-To: <loom.20120119T113323-535@post.gmane.org> References: <BLU160-W54C133B8003EF140C41EF7AE860@phx.gbl> <loom.20120119T094302-811@post.gmane.org> <8397.74345881796$1326968162@news.gmane.org> <loom.20120119T113323-535@post.gmane.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 10:41:37AM +0000, inquiz wrote: > Eduardo Morras <nec556 <at> retena.com> writes: > > > ... > > I think that a full/complete update of the old installer to add it > > support GEOM, ZFS, scripting and more newer features will consume > > more manpower and resources than create a new one from scratch, where > > the devs aren't chained by old code, backwards compatibility, old > > restrictions and old point of views. This way, is easier correct > > bugs, new features, simplify the installation and even automate it to > > this new installer than try to add them to the old one. > > > > As always, i suppose that any ideas and help are welcome. > > ... > > If devs decided that there are good technical and other reasons to retire > the old installer, then that's fair enough. > But then the new installer has to be at least equal in features, functionality, > and overall quality. . . . or provide the ability to select the old installer at boot time, perhaps. Let's not turn this into a false dilemma; I don't see why we can't have our cake and eat it too for a while. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20120119164628.GC21488>