Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2009 03:59:00 +1000 From: "Petrus" <petrus4@tpg.com.au> To: <freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: why BSDs got no love Message-ID: <001001ca87e7$70b00760$0301a8c0@jim4fb89194d83> References: <75813f040912260730w40e7ebfge72fb0686c455cd9@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> There is absolutely no reason to change the default FreeBSD installer in > my > opinion, when the PC-BSD one will suffice for the 'snazzy' desktop > installs. I won't say that sysinstall couldn't benefit from at least *some* renovation. ;) The interface is fine, sure, but what I'm primarily talking about is the download mechanism. Apparently when certain files get downloaded with it, they actually get copied in-place during the transfer process, which means that if you abort it, you can end up with partially digested conf files (my /etc/passwd got hosed once) all over the place. What I'd propose would be caching whatever files the system needs to download until everything is cached locally, and then installing the lot after that, rather than doing both downloading and installing/copying in the same step. That way you can safely abort during the process if you need to. A scenario where individual files that are to be rewritten, get temporarily backed up until the setup is complete would probably also really help. So as said, the interface is fine, but I think the internal mechanism could definitely benefit from being made a bit more robust.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?001001ca87e7$70b00760$0301a8c0>