On May 28, 2013, at 4:16 PM, Super Bisquit wrote:
In the case of firmware loaded systems, all of them aren't going to work with a
single boot loader.
Uh…
On the surface, what you're talking about seems to be unrelated to the
discussion at-hand.
Nobody said anything about unifying the boot l
In the case of firmware loaded systems, all of them aren't going to work
with a single boot loader.
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 1:15 PM, Teske, Devin wrote:
>
> On May 28, 2013, at 8:54 AM, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
>
> On 5/28/13 7:49 AM, Nathan Whitehorn wrote:
> On 05/27/13 23:36, Alfred Perlstein
On May 28, 2013, at 8:54 AM, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
On 5/28/13 7:49 AM, Nathan Whitehorn wrote:
On 05/27/13 23:36, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
On 5/27/13 6:53 PM, Nathan Whitehorn wrote:
On 05/27/13 20:40, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
On 5/27/13 2:23 PM, Bruce Cran wrote:
On 27/05/2013 21:28, Alfred Perl
On 5/28/13 7:49 AM, Nathan Whitehorn wrote:
On 05/27/13 23:36, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
On 5/27/13 6:53 PM, Nathan Whitehorn wrote:
On 05/27/13 20:40, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
On 5/27/13 2:23 PM, Bruce Cran wrote:
On 27/05/2013 21:28, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
On 5/27/13 11:40 AM, Bruce Cran wro
On 05/27/13 23:36, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
On 5/27/13 6:53 PM, Nathan Whitehorn wrote:
On 05/27/13 20:40, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
On 5/27/13 2:23 PM, Bruce Cran wrote:
On 27/05/2013 21:28, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
On 5/27/13 11:40 AM, Bruce Cran wrote:
Yes.
Is this a joke?
It probably /was
On 5/27/13 6:53 PM, Nathan Whitehorn wrote:
On 05/27/13 20:40, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
On 5/27/13 2:23 PM, Bruce Cran wrote:
On 27/05/2013 21:28, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
On 5/27/13 11:40 AM, Bruce Cran wrote:
Yes.
Is this a joke?
It probably /was/ too short a reply. Personally I think ther
On May 26, 2013, at 12:37 PM, Teske, Devin wrote:
>
> On May 26, 2013, at 11:14 AM, Bruce Cran wrote:
>
>> On 26/05/2013 18:54, Teske, Devin wrote:
>>> http://www.google-melange.com/gsoc/proposal/review/google/gsoc2013/harshbhatt/1
>>
>> "This proposal is not made public, and you are not the s
On 05/27/13 20:40, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
On 5/27/13 2:23 PM, Bruce Cran wrote:
On 27/05/2013 21:28, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
On 5/27/13 11:40 AM, Bruce Cran wrote:
Yes.
Is this a joke?
It probably /was/ too short a reply. Personally I think there should
be a single UI and scripting interf
On 5/27/13 2:23 PM, Bruce Cran wrote:
On 27/05/2013 21:28, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
On 5/27/13 11:40 AM, Bruce Cran wrote:
Yes.
Is this a joke?
It probably /was/ too short a reply. Personally I think there should
be a single UI and scripting interface across all platforms. We should
try and
On 05/27/13 16:23, Bruce Cran wrote:
On 27/05/2013 21:28, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
On 5/27/13 11:40 AM, Bruce Cran wrote:
Yes.
Is this a joke?
It probably /was/ too short a reply. Personally I think there should
be a single UI and scripting interface across all platforms. We should
try and
On 27/05/2013 21:28, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
On 5/27/13 11:40 AM, Bruce Cran wrote:
Yes.
Is this a joke?
It probably /was/ too short a reply. Personally I think there should be
a single UI and scripting interface across all platforms. We should try
and get pc-sysinstall running on all of th
I heard there was some discussion at BSDCan about the direction of a future
FreeBSD installer. Considering we currently have bsdinstall, pc-sysinstall,
the best would be removing it at all and adding instruction how to install
by hand.
At least someone that install FreeBSD will know what he/s
On 5/27/13 11:40 AM, Bruce Cran wrote:
On 27/05/2013 19:03, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
Do we always have to seek the lowest common denominator for our user
experience?
Yes.
Is this a joke?
-Alfred
___
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://l
On May 27, 2013, at 11:03 AM, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> On 5/27/13 9:56 AM, Bruce Cran wrote:
>> On 27/05/2013 16:48, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
>>> Why can we not use in the interim use pc-sysinstall on the platforms that
>>> it performs best on and use bsdinstall on the others?
>>
>> Because pc-
On 27/05/2013 19:03, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
Do we always have to seek the lowest common denominator for our user
experience?
Yes.
--
Bruce
___
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsu
On 5/27/13 9:56 AM, Bruce Cran wrote:
On 27/05/2013 16:48, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
Why can we not use in the interim use pc-sysinstall on the platforms
that it performs best on and use bsdinstall on the others?
Because pc-sysinstall doesn't have a UI - it's only a backend. If we
update bsdins
On 27/05/2013 16:48, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
Why can we not use in the interim use pc-sysinstall on the platforms
that it performs best on and use bsdinstall on the others?
Because pc-sysinstall doesn't have a UI - it's only a backend. If we
update bsdinstall to use it, then it won't work on o
On 27 May 2013 03:10, "Daniel Eischen" wrote:
>
> On Mon, 27 May 2013, Teske, Devin wrote:
>>
>>
>> I don't think there's any reason why we have to write it in C if we can
write
>> it in sh.
>
>
> I don't really care one way or the other (C or sh), but
> I can say that I can understand(*) well str
On 5/25/13 8:45 PM, Teske, Devin wrote:
On May 25, 2013, at 7:51 PM, Super Bisquit wrote:
Please don't turn this into an architecture dependent mess. PCBSD is i386 &
AMD64 only.
There's a GSoC project (of which I'm potential mentor) to fix that.
However, you are entirely right… we can't in a
On 5/26/13 10:03 AM, Dirk Engling wrote:
On 26.05.13 04:51, Super Bisquit wrote:
Please don't turn this into an architecture dependent mess. PCBSD is
i386 & AMD64 only.
Read my email thoroughly and notice that I never seriously considered
using pc-sysinstall after looking into it. Don't worry.
On Mon, 27 May 2013, Teske, Devin wrote:
I don't think there's any reason why we have to write it in C if we can write
it in sh.
I don't really care one way or the other (C or sh), but
I can say that I can understand(*) well structured C a lot
better than well structured sh. Having something
On May 26, 2013, at 4:27 PM, Dirk Engling wrote:
> On 26.05.13 05:42, Teske, Devin wrote:
>
>> I chose 100% sh for bsdconfig because of a few good reasons…
>
> First, the partedit tool makes heavy use of libgeom and the structs
> returned from that lib, so I've rather wondered why for some part
On 27/05/2013 00:27, Dirk Engling wrote:
Still, thanks for pointing all that out, but I rather wanted to look at
the installer from another angle, as it is supposed to provide everyone
from FreeBSD novices to experts with a comfortable way to do things the
right way and yet be flexible enough to
On 26.05.13 05:42, Teske, Devin wrote:
> I chose 100% sh for bsdconfig because of a few good reasons…
First, the partedit tool makes heavy use of libgeom and the structs
returned from that lib, so I've rather wondered why for some parts C was
preferred, and not the other way around.
Still, thank
On May 26, 2013, at 11:14 AM, Bruce Cran wrote:
> On 26/05/2013 18:54, Teske, Devin wrote:
>> http://www.google-melange.com/gsoc/proposal/review/google/gsoc2013/harshbhatt/1
>
> "This proposal is not made public, and you are not the student who submitted
> the proposal, nor are you a mentor for
On 26/05/2013 18:54, Teske, Devin wrote:
http://www.google-melange.com/gsoc/proposal/review/google/gsoc2013/harshbhatt/1
"This proposal is not made public, and you are not the student who
submitted the proposal, nor are you a mentor for the organization it was
submitted to."
--
Bruce Cran
_
On May 26, 2013, at 9:58 AM, Super Bisquit wrote:
May I- and others- see the hyperlink to the project,
please?
Absolutely…
http://www.google-melange.com/gsoc/proposal/review/google/gsoc2013/harshbhatt/1
--
Devin
On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 11:45 PM, Teske, Devin
mailto:devin.te...@fisglobal.com
On 26.05.13 04:51, Super Bisquit wrote:
> Please don't turn this into an architecture dependent mess. PCBSD is
> i386 & AMD64 only.
Read my email thoroughly and notice that I never seriously considered
using pc-sysinstall after looking into it. Don't worry.
erdgeist
May I- and others- see the hyperlink to the project,
please?
On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 11:45 PM, Teske, Devin wrote:
>
> On May 25, 2013, at 7:51 PM, Super Bisquit wrote:
>
> > Please don't turn this into an architecture dependent mess. PCBSD is
> i386 &
> > AMD64 only.
> >
>
> There's a GSoC proj
On May 25, 2013, at 7:51 PM, Super Bisquit wrote:
> Please don't turn this into an architecture dependent mess. PCBSD is i386 &
> AMD64 only.
>
There's a GSoC project (of which I'm potential mentor) to fix that.
However, you are entirely right… we can't in all seriousness even think about
usi
On May 25, 2013, at 6:01 PM, Dirk Engling wrote:
> On 26.05.13 01:07, Nathan Whitehorn wrote:
>
>> I'm not aware of any movement there (on either side of the table). I'd
>> personally be very suspicious of an all-sh(1) future -- by far the
>> cleanest parts of bsdinstall are in C -- and this is
On May 25, 2013, at 4:07 PM, Nathan Whitehorn wrote:
> On 05/25/13 13:26, Bruce Cran wrote:
>> On 25/05/2013 17:15, Matt Olander wrote:
>>> From my vague recollection, we discussed improving bsdinstall by tying
>>> it in with pc-sysinstall, which we've been threatening to do for at
>>> least a ye
On May 25, 2013, at 11:26 AM, Bruce Cran wrote:
> On 25/05/2013 17:15, Matt Olander wrote:
>> From my vague recollection, we discussed improving bsdinstall by tying
>> it in with pc-sysinstall, which we've been threatening to do for at
>> least a year. Also, there was much discussion about Devin'
On May 25, 2013, at 9:15 AM, Matt Olander wrote:
> On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 8:43 AM, Bruce Cran wrote:
>>
>> I heard there was some discussion at BSDCan about the direction of a future
>> FreeBSD installer. Considering we currently have bsdinstall, pc-sysinstall,
>> and an effort to revive sy
Please don't turn this into an architecture dependent mess. PCBSD is i386 &
AMD64 only.
On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 9:01 PM, Dirk Engling wrote:
> On 26.05.13 01:07, Nathan Whitehorn wrote:
>
> > I'm not aware of any movement there (on either side of the table). I'd
> > personally be very suspiciou
On 26.05.13 01:07, Nathan Whitehorn wrote:
> I'm not aware of any movement there (on either side of the table). I'd
> personally be very suspicious of an all-sh(1) future -- by far the
> cleanest parts of bsdinstall are in C -- and this is especially true for
> interacting with geom. That said, si
On 05/25/13 13:26, Bruce Cran wrote:
On 25/05/2013 17:15, Matt Olander wrote:
From my vague recollection, we discussed improving bsdinstall by tying
it in with pc-sysinstall, which we've been threatening to do for at
least a year. Also, there was much discussion about Devin's bsdconfig
perhaps
On 25/05/2013 17:15, Matt Olander wrote:
From my vague recollection, we discussed improving bsdinstall by tying
it in with pc-sysinstall, which we've been threatening to do for at
least a year. Also, there was much discussion about Devin's bsdconfig
perhaps tying in with a Google SoC Project.
I
On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 8:43 AM, Bruce Cran wrote:
>
> I heard there was some discussion at BSDCan about the direction of a future
> FreeBSD installer. Considering we currently have bsdinstall, pc-sysinstall,
> and an effort to revive sysinstall, I'd be interested to know what was
> decided (i
I heard there was some discussion at BSDCan about the direction of a
future FreeBSD installer. Considering we currently have bsdinstall,
pc-sysinstall, and an effort to revive sysinstall, I'd be interested to
know what was decided (if anything) and whether I could help make
progress towards ge
40 matches
Mail list logo
