Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 08:30:38 +0200 From: Polytropon <freebsd@edvax.de> To: Wojciech Puchar <wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> Cc: Adam Vandemore <amvandemore@gmail.com>, questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Modern FreeBSD Installer? Message-ID: <20090423083038.2338657b.freebsd@edvax.de> In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.0904222316130.3543@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> References: <BLU0-SMTP493F2C64E33D39A37EF75DD8740@phx.gbl> <714DFCFC-9547-497D-A2C7-0BA10B39B901@mac.com> <49EF82B2.2040807@gmail.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.0904222316130.3543@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 22 Apr 2009 23:16:43 +0200 (CEST), Wojciech Puchar <wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> 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 it. Simply consider what will happen if you try to use a GUI installer via a serial console (and this is a common task in datacenters). > it doesn't make sense. Exactly. More graphics != better. And surely not "modern". -- Polytropon >From Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20090423083038.2338657b.freebsd>