From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jan 19 16:46:35 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 580F91065677 for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 16:46:35 +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 1EEB08FC08 for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 16:46:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 12360 invoked by uid 0); 19 Jan 2012 16:46:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO box543.bluehost.com) (74.220.219.143) by oproxy9.bluehost.com with SMTP; 19 Jan 2012 16:46:34 -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=Zp0d5WXphOdPvE+t8gE+mxrhTgU6S61B/r+/lXju2C8=; b=ciOCDnkg/sqTNBim9hvqfK3Aw/kxOmTf0lq2vg0Quq66mpZRgxYNPJIKK/XfhykceMskziDJ64Ot08rDss+Vz5yl0ITxpHi1Ks6Oh4FmjEAD0eusyaih1+ci11Zw2gZr; 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 1Rnv8A-0006j1-5w for freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 09:46:30 -0700 Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 09:46:28 -0700 From: Chad Perrin To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20120119164628.GC21488@hemlock.hydra> Mail-Followup-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org References: <8397.74345881796$1326968162@news.gmane.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: 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 16:46:35 -0000 On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 10:41:37AM +0000, inquiz wrote: > 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. . . . or provide the ability to select the old installer at boot time, perhaps. Let's not turn this into a false dilemma; I don't see why we can't have our cake and eat it too for a while. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]