From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jan 19 16:42:40 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 1E69F106566C for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 16:42:40 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from perrin@apotheon.com) Received: from oproxy9.bluehost.com (oproxy9.bluehost.com [IPv6:2605:dc00:100:2::a2]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D4D128FC1F for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 16:42:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 1505 invoked by uid 0); 19 Jan 2012 16:42:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO box543.bluehost.com) (74.220.219.143) by oproxy9.bluehost.com with SMTP; 19 Jan 2012 16:42:39 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=apotheon.com; s=default; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version:References:Message-ID:Subject:To:From:Date; bh=d+m3AxRB3ig86FpWwkv0TvnCCs0QlSSdHLpnemUU9uo=; b=Z4dsRJELX+yhrcnETECj5F/Tyfb/2ipSWjWDXhsBNYnrwqrdIQYFtj//fY0PWIw4KR9oh/bneaqWMAgLKZfg7Nslx19msWahLFDXk7dMqbBiers3vs6HB8J/LXkCmsPS; Received: from c-24-8-180-234.hsd1.co.comcast.net ([24.8.180.234] helo=localhost) by box543.bluehost.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Rnv4O-0007A1-4T for freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 09:42:36 -0700 Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 09:42:34 -0700 From: Chad Perrin To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20120119164234.GB21488@hemlock.hydra> Mail-Followup-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org References: <4EFDA3B50040906E@> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4EFDA3B50040906E@> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Identified-User: {2737:box543.bluehost.com:apotheon:apotheon.com} {sentby:smtp auth 24.8.180.234 authed with perrin@apotheon.com} 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 16:42:40 -0000 On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 11:15:08AM +0100, Eduardo Morras wrote: > > 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. I'm curious: Is this just speculation, or have you determined this by reading the source of the old installer? Old code means *tested* code, and when it is well-maintained it often means easily extensible code. Is that the case for the old installer, or is the older installer a crufty mess of "temporary" fixes that became permanent, as your statements seem to imply? -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]