From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jan 19 10:41:55 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C590C106566B for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 10:41:55 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-questions@m.gmane.org) Received: from lo.gmane.org (lo.gmane.org [80.91.229.12]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DB0D8FC08 for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 10:41:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RnpRI-0007q9-Ch for freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 11:41:52 +0100 Received: from np-19-75.prenet.pl ([79.139.19.75]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 11:41:52 +0100 Received: from inquiz by np-19-75.prenet.pl with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 11:41:52 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org From: inquiz Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 10:41:37 +0000 (UTC) Lines: 30 Message-ID: References: <8397.74345881796$1326968162@news.gmane.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: sea.gmane.org User-Agent: Loom/3.14 (http://gmane.org/) X-Loom-IP: 79.139.19.75 (Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:9.0.1) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/9.0.1) Subject: Re: FreeBSD 9 X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 10:41:55 -0000 Eduardo Morras 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. Take a look at: http://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20100308#feature Installation, etc. Very impressive. inquiz