Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 16:14:46 -0700 From: Chad Perrin <perrin@apotheon.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD 9 Message-ID: <20120119231446.GA27565@hemlock.hydra> In-Reply-To: <04ff01ccd6fa$ca9a4e20$5fceea60$@fisglobal.com> References: <BLU160-W54C133B8003EF140C41EF7AE860@phx.gbl> <loom.20120119T094302-811@post.gmane.org> <4EFDA3B50040906E@> <20120119164234.GB21488@hemlock.hydra> <04db01ccd6df$a6ebe3f0$f4c3abd0$@fisglobal.com> <20120119200106.GB88862@orange.esperance-linux.co.uk> <04ff01ccd6fa$ca9a4e20$5fceea60$@fisglobal.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 02:36:29PM -0800, Devin Teske wrote: > > From: Frank Shute > > > > The new installer will get better with time. > > The new installer is buggy, and the above maxim is something I'd rather not have > to deal with when downloading RELEASE software. I do not dispute that the new installer is "buggy", nor do I agree that it is "buggy". I have used it twice, without any bugs biting me. That may just be good luck. I have, however, discovered that usability is no better than sysinstall; it's just *different*. In fact, in some respects, it feels more limiting. I suspect some of my issues with it will be resolved by simple familiarity -- but then, some of those issues are not due solely to differences between bsdinstall and sysinstall; they are also due to differences between bsdinstall and *every* console-based piece of software with that general curses-style appearance. Maybe I'll never get to quite *that* level of familiarity with bsdinstall, considering I use a lot of other console-based applications, too. I do not recall running into any bugs in sysinstall, either, by the way. Considering how many more times I have used it, I think it is far less likely that I was just lucky. Perhaps it has bugs, but it must have bugs primarily with features for which I have (so far) had no use. If the fact sysinstall does not support some functionality needed for installation of new versions of FreeBSD (I believe someone has suggested this is the case) while bsdinstall does is a result of sysinstall's architecture being insufficiently well organized for the addition of this functionality to be a reasonable alternative to writing a new installer instead, I can understand the desire to create and propagate the use of bsdinstall. In that case, great: I'm glad we're moving forward. If it is functionality that not everyone needs, I think it might be nice to offer both installers as options (perhaps bsdinstall as the default, if we must). As someone who has never really looked into the code used to handle starting the installation process, I do not know how feasiable that is, and would appreciate someone who knows from first-hand experience enlightening me as to whether it's a good idea. It is likely that many people will not need the new functionality that bsdinstall would support, if it relates to things like ZFS support, after all. If the reason it was decided to create bsdinstall and replace sysinstall was simply to do something new, without particular interest in maintaining the benefits provided by sysinstall, and without any actual technical requirement for the new installer, I have a somewhat different opinion -- one normally reserved for ludicrous exercises of neophilia like those rampant in the Ubuntu community in particular and the Linux community in general, breaking all the old ways of doing things just because someone decided to write some code one day. Did you know that ifconfig is no longer guaranteed to work as a tool for restarting networking on Linux-based systems? Are you aware of the Cthulhoid tentacular horror of the Linux sound architecture, especially with PulseAudio thrown into the mix? Have you seen the filesystem and shell environment clutter that is the XDG Base Directory Specification? Please, let the reasons behind bsdinstall be better than for all of those messes. I'm inclined to believe that the motives for bsdinstall are good motives, knowing what I do of the FreeBSD developers' philosophy (maybe not a lot, but enough to know it tends to eschew such radical changes for change's sake, in my experience). It may have moved slightly too quickly, but it may be a movement in the right direction nonetheless, and I hope it is. I'd just like to know more about the whys and wherefores than statements (from people who have not indicated where I can see it that they actually know anything about it first-hand) that sysinstall is "buggy" because the manpage says so and bsdinstall is not because it's not sysinstall. > > RELEASE software shouldn't be released under the statement "it will get better > with time". Releasing feature-INcomplete software that is known to be broken > hurts the FreeBSD impression far more than sysinstall ever could/did. I feel > your argument is an attempt to justify the egregious offense of foisting > premature software on the community when in-fact it does NOT replicate even a > fraction of the abilities of sysinstall. I also think it's worthwhile to give people the benefit of the doubt, at least at first. Perhaps the rhetoric can be scaled back a little bit in this case. Has there been some response to your complaints that I have not seen that justifies this level of heat? -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20120119231446.GA27565>