Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2036 22:28:34 -0800 (PST) From: Simon Shapiro <shimon@simon-shapiro.org> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> Cc: tom@sdf.com, capriotti@geocities.com, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: X based Free installation Message-ID: <XFMail.360206222834.shimon@simon-shapiro.org> In-Reply-To: <199801082125.OAA14363@usr06.primenet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I largely agree, Terry. I think we both recognize that good structure and sound design are keys to this (and most other) engineering challenge. The real problem with X11 based install is that the thing is so huge, vumbersome and difficult to write for. Something like 8 1/2 would have been more practical to fit on a floppy... BTW, you made a comment about Linux ease of installation. Which Linux? Simon On 08-Jan-98 Terry Lambert wrote: > [ ... ] > >> 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. ---------- Sincerely Yours, Simon Shapiro Shimon@Simon-Shapiro.ORG Voice: 503.799.2313
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?XFMail.360206222834.shimon>