Subject: Re: Graphical Sysinst in 2.0
To: Greywolf <email@example.com>
From: Bill Studenmund <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 09/03/2004 13:49:14
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 04:57:53PM -0700, Greywolf wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> Thus spake Zafer Aydogan ("ZA> ") sometime Tomorrow...
> ZA> Yes, that was, what I wanted to hear.
> ZA> Full ACK.
> ZA> It blows that the most of the replies tend on saying, I am a pro, let=
> ZA> the newbies - we don't need a graphical sysinst.
> Well, we don't. One of the things I like about NetBSD is that it has
> long resisted the temptation to dumb things down, like so many other
> arenae have done. I have a problem that the dopes expect us to lower
> ourselves to their level. My counterexpectation is for people to
> become educated, self- or otherwise.
> ZA> Bullshit!
> That is an articulation which could oh! so easily be fired in return
> when it is made impossible to see what is happening behind the scenes.
> I get angry enough when I can't switch from my X screen to see what the
> debugger just said as my machine froze.
Then don't use the graphical installer. I don't think anyone has been=20
suggesting getting rid of sysinst, only having a graphical installer.
If I'm wrong and they have been suggesting killing sysinst in addition to
adding a graphical installer, well, that idea can be forgotten. :-) While
I like the idea of an X-based install, there are too many times when X=20
isn't an option.
> ZA> NetBSD isn't getting worse, only because it offers a comfortable way =
> ZA> up.
> ZA> And as I said before, that'd win NetBSD more new users, probably.
> ZA> And if not, it would at least let the current users stay using NetBSD
> ZA> instead of drifting to FreeBSD or other Operating Systems.
> it just goes to show that people don't recognise technical superiority
> when it rears its head. Bloat is just well and fscked, more than you kno=
> Do you have ANY clue what it would take for X to set itself up just to do
> an install, in terms of resources as well as in terms of configuration?
Note that we get to define what X is being set up to do. Now, we _could_
aim high with our X config, in which case it would be a ROYAL pain. Or we
could aim low, like an SVGA mode & no hardware accel, and choose something
that every card will support.
> Mind you, it could be done WITHOUT mandating X in the base installation
> (so that's a straw man, for those interested in perpetuating THAT argumen=
> What would you rather see at installation time:
> * a concise set of menus and the like, such as we have now, with the
> options of where and how (including ACROSS MULTIPLE DISKS!) to lay
> out filesystems (or the dopesmoker option which (thinks it) figures
> it out for you); or
> * an error message that says "You don't have enough memory to run the
> I can tell you right now that any potentially brave souls new to NetBSD
> would look at that second one and run screaming for the exit. Yet,
> if they had a small memory model machine (say, 8MB or 16MB), an X
> installer would not be possible.
That's one of the reasons I don't see us not having a text/curses=20
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (NetBSD)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----