Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 21:25:08 +0000 (GMT) From: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> To: shimon@simon-shapiro.org Cc: tlambert@primenet.com, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, capriotti@geocities.com, tom@sdf.com Subject: Re: X based Free installation Message-ID: <199801082125.OAA14363@usr06.primenet.com> In-Reply-To: <XFMail.360206231329.shimon@simon-shapiro.org> from "Simon Shapiro" at Feb 6, 36 11:13:29 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[ ... ] > Humanity (for the most part) abandoned pictographs about 5,000 years ago. > The result was a proliferation of writing and knowledge amoung us commoners. Clearly, you haven't been to a large urban area lately. ;-). Reading and writing only became commonplace after Gutenburg (no, not Steve) invented the press. The Catholic Church vs. Galileo was mostly the result of him writing Principia Mathematica in Italian instead of Latin -- "us commoners" of the time couldn't read or write Latin, and new ideas needed to be fit into Church doctrine over time so that "us commoners" wouldn't see abrupt changes and thus erode the claim to authority of the Church. 8-). > > Now with all this said, it IS possible to make non-graphical installs > > that do this. The Windows 3.1 install is a good example. But such > > examples do not abound in the real world; they are few and far between. > > I see the problem. You are confusing implementation and concept. The > concepts you describe are (for the most part :-) very sound. > Since menus developed after character mode terminals, > and ergonomics sometimes after the graphical terminal, you, naturally > assocu=iate nasty, obscure, menu driven applications with character mode, > and logical, concise applications with GUI. This equation os not > nececcerily permanent. Uh... that's what I said... that "it IS possible to make non-graphical installs that do this". 8-). > Why? Because GUI interfaces are great at event/user driven applications > where you really are trying to describe something abstract and arrange it > in a graphical manner. The user is in the driver's seat. I think about this differently. I don't think of dialog screens as event based. Sure, the toolkits make you program them that way, but really they are more akin to a dialog equalling an input screen on a block mode terminal. I think the important thing is to seperate the process into blocks of changes seperated by submits. This is what makes "wizards" such a powerful idea under Windows 95. > For a simple dialogue, where the computer needs to ask certain questions, > and the user NEEDS to supply reasonable answer, GUIs have no inherent > advantage. The computer is in the driver's seat. Agreed. The advantage is in the dialog abstraction itself, not in the implementation technology used to implement the abstraction. > Last, but not least. Cost/benefit considerations. Being that FreeBSD is > installed once in a blue moon on a system and being that there is no > market/financial incentive to make that boring but critical task look > pretty, why spend the effort? There is a market advantage. I think the Linux Advocacy has proven several times over that any market advantage should be taken, where it can be. There is advantage to a larger installed base that goes beyond the financial incentives (which free software lacks). The larger number of coders contributing to Linux than FreeBSD is *not* attributable solely to the philosophical and organizational differences between the camps. > you will not lure in any died in the wool M4'er. M$ told them that > Unix is bad, so Unix is bad. Those that can actually think for > themselves will tolerate FreeBSD installation, just to get away from > M$ for a while. I don't believe this. The install is the first impression. If you have a (relatively) bad install, people aren't going to bother with your product. If you aren't obviously as good as Microsoft, then you aren't going to win mindshare from that camp at all. Linux installation is easier. Not because of the software, which is arguably a lot worse than FreeBSD's for some time now, but because of the number of bodies in the camp. Frankly, the Linux camp will send a body over to install your software for you. The only thing that rivals that is OS preinstalls from hardware vendors (Rod Grimes included, of course). > Now, NetBSD Installation is something I was never capable of completing. > I am not that smart. Heh. This is funny because, in order to install FreeBSD in the early days of FreeBSD (1.x era), I had to use the NetBSD/x86 install disk. FreeBSD could not deal correctly with WD 1007 ESDI controllers, and NetBSD could. Once the disklabel was in place, I could install FreeBSD. I guess everyone's mileage varies... 8-). Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199801082125.OAA14363>