On Sun, 20 Dec 2015 10:51:20 +0000 Tati Chevron <chev...@swabsit.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 05:34:59PM -0600, Luke Small > <lukensm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >If installer GUIs are bad, maybe features like full-disk encryption > >could be accomplished via lynx-like text -based HTML and/or > >JavaScript that could write to cookies that the installer could > >parse into commands? > > There are much better ways to implement text-based menu systems than > using... Mentioning menu systems is an incorrect idea too, read bellow. First, what is this mythical "text-mode gui"? A text mode garbled user interface, a new oxymoron of textual and graphical interfaces in the same definition, or another gaseous non oxygen based substance? Probably, global usability inheritance, right? Usability means then it should be not only humans but also programs who are able to interact with the installer. So, since stream editors know nothing about this seasons' (or Luddite's) line drawing symbols, and users barely see the information between these on another terminal capability controlled device, just and only: plain line oriented interface works Meaning, this has been one unnecessary (if not totally ridiculous) suggestion to begin with, followed by another one such "gold" nugget. Current installer is the gold standard in usability and the addition of automatic installation & upgrade capabilities proved that already. http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/man.cgi/OpenBSD-current/man8/autoinstall.8
