Subject: Re: Graphical Sysinst in 2.0
To: None <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Bill Studenmund <email@example.com>
Date: 09/07/2004 14:08:47
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Sat, Sep 04, 2004 at 10:37:45PM +0800, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> Quoting Richard Rauch <email@example.com>:=20
> > I don't know how much that means for some archetectures. Maybe
> > the XFree86 probing was not very portable. (And it certainly
> > is not yet flawless.) Still, this may be something of a background
> > issue. Trying an automated X config, and bailing out if things go
> > bad, is one option. It would require a user with enough knowledge
> > to kill X if X thought it was running but had screwed up something
> > in the display.
> A message on the screen that says press ALT-CTRL-BACKSPACE if X gets it w=
> might be sufficient. But anyway...
Something along the lines of either what Fedora does (the boot loader=20
says, "type this to start a graphical install" and "type this to start a=20
text-based install") or a text-based one that has an option to start a=20
> > * To Bill, I think that developers are not voicing so many
> > opinions because those who want it know that they can work on
> > it. Non-developers can't just vote with their development time
> > because they don't have any. So instead, they make their opinions
> > known about what they do or don't think would make NetBSD better.
> I'm already rewriting sysinst from scratch. The only reason I haven't sa=
> anything is because I'm a "newbie" and while I am no fsck'ing idiot, I can
> appear to be sometimes, and I don't wish to be flamed or mocked. (There'=
> first time for everything.)
That's fair. You might speak with dsl as I think he's been fussing with=20
sysinst quite a lot of late.
> I've devoted myself to full time NetBSD development because I'm on the
> unemployment scrap heap, no chance of affording a decent higher education,
> perhaps better off dead, and may as well make the most of it. :-) Also,=
> tried every system under the Sun in the past 10 years and left disillusio=
> every time. I have finally found a cozy little home with NetBSD.
I hope things work out. I did NOT enjoy my unemployment stint.
> It just needs to be simple, understandable, and quick. No dropping someo=
> an illogical and contorted interface that sometimes has options or import=
> information flash past with no hope of retrieving it. No gigabytes of us=
> crap that I will never use or even know about.
I think the above requirement is true of any installer. :-)
> > Where would things stop? Would we have a GUI tool for
> > configuring a kernel? A GUI tool for adding and removing
> > users? A GUI tool for packages? Would these tools become
> > mainstream recommended ways to install/manage a system?
> > (Once *that* happens, I think that people stop worrying
> > so much about making it possible to get around without
> > the tools. This is what Mandrake has done, I think.)
> A sane, easy to use and quick plain-old-text console interface for everyt=
> written in portable C, and maybe a juicy, fancy curses sysinst for i386 a=
> PowerPC? Maybe.
We have a curses interface for every port right now, so I think you can=20
assume that as a baseline. I think a plain-old-text interface might=20
actually be less useful; both curses and X can cope with multiple lists of=
choices at once while plain-old-text might not do that so well.
> I really don't think it matters (graphical vs. text). It's how intuitive=
> easy it is to use, how quick it is, and how
I agree with the above, and I think for some folks graphical is better=20
than text, and for some text is better.
> what-you-expect-to-get-is-what-you-get that counts. When I install just =
> base sets, I want just the base sets. No KDE thanks. No games, no usele=
> garbage. No illogical dependencies like Palm Pilot or PCMCIA stuff when =
> no Palm Pilot nor do I use a laptop.
Well, you've now wandered into system configuration and syspkg and an=20
integrated OS + pkgsrc install. I think there are a number of choices we'd=
need to make before we get there. :-)
> > 2) As you might infer from the above, I have reservations
> > about a graphical installer. (^& Aside from some of
> > the above, which may or may not happen, I do not find
> > the NetBSD sysinst hard to use (when it works correctly).
> > There seems to be some kind of presumed "graphical =3D=3D easy".
> I agree. Graphical is not necessarily easy.
> > Maybe I've missed it, but what is the real gain from a
> > graphical install?
> It's more impressive than a text based interface.=20
And for some folks, it may work better. :-)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (NetBSD)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----