Ed Schouten wrote:
> * Paul B Mahol wrote:
>> This have nothing to do with ncurses, colors you like simple can not
>> be displayed in current syscons(4) and making support for 256 colors
>> or even true bit color in sysinstall(so that it looks amazing in
>> konsole) is waste of time.
>
> Yes. As
> What sometimes bothers me a bit while using sysinstall is the long sequence
> of
> Yes/No questions at a certain moment ('do you want NFS server? do you want
> NFS client? do you want anonymous FTP? do you want bridging? etc...). A
> more logical user interface seems a list of configurab
On Saturday 10 October 2009 01:59:32 Randi Harper wrote:
> All the problems with sysinstall, and your idea is to
> change the color? [...]
Fancy colors seems to me like a wrong focus of attention too... but maybe it
would be nice to be able to run sysinstall in monochrome mode, for maximum
cont
* Paul B Mahol wrote:
> This have nothing to do with ncurses, colors you like simple can not
> be displayed in current syscons(4) and making support for 256 colors
> or even true bit color in sysinstall(so that it looks amazing in
> konsole) is waste of time.
Yes. As of recently, our terminal em
On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 06:21, alexbestms@ wrote:
of course sysinstall has a ton of problems and should be replaced. no doubt
about it. but look at it from this angle:
You should really ask what the FreeBSD angle on this is. It is really well
versed and well planned out and covers many areas amo
Randi Harper schrieb am 2009-10-10:
> On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 12:52 PM, Alexander Best <
> alexbes...@math.uni-muenster.de> wrote:
> > hi there,
> > sysinstall is probably one of those ancient relics everybody tries
> > to avoid
> > dealing with from a developers point of view but i just found thi
jhell schrieb am 2009-10-09:
> On Fri, 9 Oct 2009 21:52 +0200, alexbestms@ wrote:
> >hi there,
> >sysinstall is probably one of those ancient relics everybody tries
> >to avoid
> >dealing with from a developers point of view but i just found this
> >beautiful
> >screenie of a (probably) ncurse-ba
On 10/9/09, Alexander Best wrote:
> hi there,
>
> sysinstall is probably one of those ancient relics everybody tries to avoid
> dealing with from a developers point of view but i just found this beautiful
> screenie of a (probably) ncurse-based installer:
>
> http://www.phoronix.net/image.php?id=y
On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 12:52 PM, Alexander Best <
alexbes...@math.uni-muenster.de> wrote:
> hi there,
>
> sysinstall is probably one of those ancient relics everybody tries to avoid
> dealing with from a developers point of view but i just found this
> beautiful
> screenie of a (probably) ncurse-b
Alexander,
==8<==
>> http://www.phoronix.net/image.php?id=yoper_2009_beta&image=yoper_dresden_7_lrg
==8<==
The head maintainer of Yoper; Tobias G, runs a kernel patchset I
work on from http://zen-sources.org as his default kernel. I am sure
he would be more than happy to discuss some of their
On Fri, 9 Oct 2009 21:52 +0200, alexbestms@ wrote:
hi there,
sysinstall is probably one of those ancient relics everybody tries to avoid
dealing with from a developers point of view but i just found this beautiful
screenie of a (probably) ncurse-based installer:
http://www.phoronix.net/image.p
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 01:07+0300, Dan Naumov wrote:
> screen: The screen states that in order to do a
> manual installation " login as root, and follow the instructions
> given in the file /README". There is no indication regarding how the
> user is su
Which Wiki do you want me to contribute this to?
http://wiki.freebsd.org/FreeBSD/BSDInstaller2009 or
http://wiki.bsdinstaller.org/wikka.php?wakka=BSDInstaller ? Whichever
it is, I am not that experienced with editing Wikis, so perhaps you
could create the needed sections/subsections for usability i
On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 3:56 PM, Dan Naumov wrote:
> Which Wiki do you want me to contribute this to?
> http://wiki.freebsd.org/FreeBSD/BSDInstaller2009 or
> http://wiki.bsdinstaller.org/wikka.php?wakka=BSDInstaller ? Whichever
> it is, I am not that experienced with editing Wikis, so perhaps you
>
On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 6:07 PM, Dan Naumov wrote:
> As promised, I took a go at this new BSDInstaller, I wrote down some
> of my thoughts. Since I don't know if this is the kind of feedback you
> are looking for, here is just a part of it. As you can probably guess
> from it, I deal with usability
As promised, I took a go at this new BSDInstaller, I wrote down some
of my thoughts. Since I don't know if this is the kind of feedback you
are looking for, here is just a part of it. As you can probably guess
from it, I deal with usability issues in software applications a lot,
hence my point of v
Quoting Dmitry Morozovsky :
Well, I can see at least one rather big problem with bgfsck (or with
snapshots to be more precise): inappropriate time of file system
lock on snapshot creation. On not-too-big 300G ufs2 not-too-heavy
loaded snapshot creation time is 20+ minutes, and 5+ from that
On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 12:42 PM, Dan Naumov wrote:
> Hello list
>
> Let me preface this by saying that I do not have coding
> knowledge/experience, but I am willing to donate my time to help test
> things if somebody is already working on this. Hopefully, this will
> prevent most of the potential "
during installation process as well gives these newer options
(UFS2+GJournal and ZFS in this case) a better exposure, resulting in
more testing, resulting in these new features getting their quirks
ironed out faster and resulting in these new features getting the
"truly tested and proven by time"
And things like these are amongst the reasons why I want to see newer
options be presented and offered to the user during installation
process. Default installation options (and the ONLY options presented
by sysinstall) that result in enormous snapshot creation times and
long fsck times are just no
to be more precise): inappropriate time of file system lock on snapshot
creation. On not-too-big 300G ufs2 not-too-heavy loaded snapshot creation time
is 20+ minutes, and 5+ from that file system blocked even on reads. This looks
unacceptable for me for any real use.
that's why i disable it. If
On Wed, 10 Jun 2009, Dag-Erling Sm?rgrav wrote:
DS> sth...@nethelp.no writes:
DS> > I've had several cases that needed manual fsck. After I turned off
DS> > background fsck, the problems stopped. These days background_fsck="NO"
DS> > is a standard part of my rc.conf.
DS>
DS> Hear, hear.
Well, I
sth...@nethelp.no writes:
> I've had several cases that needed manual fsck. After I turned off
> background fsck, the problems stopped. These days background_fsck="NO"
> is a standard part of my rc.conf.
Hear, hear.
DES
--
Dag-Erling Smørgrav - d...@des.no
___
Hmm I disagree about large fs have large files. We have inherited quite a
few mail servers at work with 1 TB + fs. They had 10 of millions of files.
still 100kB/file. It's fine to use -b 32768 -f 4096 -i 65536 (or 32768 at
least)
___
freebsd-hackers
...@freebsd.org; freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: sysinstall, GJOURNAL and ZFS
> filesystems/volumes of today, which can easily span 10tb+ in a
> production environment, having to deal with fsck times is a complete
> no-go.
>
just use large block sizes are really small amount of inodes. it
> I've had several cases that needed manual fsck. After I turned off
> background fsck, the problems stopped. These days background_fsck="NO"
> is a standard part of my rc.conf.
don't be so negative, steinar, balance it with
fsck_y_enable=YES
randy
___
filesystems/volumes of today, which can easily span 10tb+ in a
production environment, having to deal with fsck times is a complete
no-go.
just use large block sizes are really small amount of inodes. it's
unlikely that you will fill such huge FS with mostly small files, so
larger blocks are no
problem has since been fixed.
I've had several cases that needed manual fsck. After I turned off
background fsck, the problems stopped. These days background_fsck="NO"
is a standard part of my rc.conf.
and mine.
actually snapshots doesn't work on large partitions - could simply crash.
that's
> Can you back this up? I cannot recall having ever rendered a FreeBSD
> system unbootable due to UFS/UFS2 problems after a power failure or
> crash. I once had a problem with snapshots that made background fsck
> fail and crash the system, but it was fixable by booting single user and
> running fs
What arch are these snapshots, are they amd64 or i386? Speaking of
-STABLE snapshots, since they are a more slowly moving target than
-CURRENT, 1 snapshot every week or so would definately be enough :)
- Dan Naumov
On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 8:31 PM, Scott Ullrich wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 1:
Dan Naumov wrote:
> Hello list
>
> Let me preface this by saying that I do not have coding
> knowledge/experience, but I am willing to donate my time to help test
> things if somebody is already working on this. Hopefully, this will
> prevent most of the potential "feel free to submit patches" resp
I know some might dismiss my personal experience as "anecdotal", but
yes I have had that happen to me twice. Some googling will show that I
am not the only one to ever experience fatal UFS+softupdates failures.
I even ran into a page from 2006 (I think), where a fellow wrote some
code which would w
Great! I am downloading
http://snapshots.pfsense.org/FreeBSD_8_0/FreeBSD-20090608-1522-8.0-CURRENT.iso.gz
as we speak and will give it a whirl within the next few days. Any
plans to do similar snapshot builds of -STABLE?
- Dan Naumov
On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 7:58 PM, Scott Ullrich wrote:
> On Tue,
On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 1:46 PM, Dan Naumov wrote:
> What arch are these snapshots, are they amd64 or i386? Speaking of
> -STABLE snapshots, since they are a more slowly moving target than
> -CURRENT, 1 snapshot every week or so would definately be enough :)
These are i386 FreeBSD-8-CURRENT. We bu
noticeably higher chance of leaving you with an unbootable system than
if you were using Linux with ext3/ext4 or Windows with NTFS.
Can you back this up? I cannot recall having ever rendered a FreeBSD
system unbootable due to UFS/UFS2 problems after a power failure or
I can confirm the opposit
Interestingly in my experience its been the opposite, I've lost a few
ext3 filesystems though bad power, same for NTFS (NT4, less so with
200x) but as yet never for ufs2 (fsck has always fixed it.)
In worse cases it required manual attention :) UFS is used and improved
over 20 years, it's SI
On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 1:17 PM, Dan Naumov wrote:
> Great! I am downloading
> http://snapshots.pfsense.org/FreeBSD_8_0/FreeBSD-20090608-1522-8.0-CURRENT.iso.gz
> as we speak and will give it a whirl within the next few days. Any
> plans to do similar snapshot builds of -STABLE?
I had not planned o
On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 11:50 AM, Vincent Hoffman wrote:
[snip]
>
> That said, there have been a few projects to update/replace/whatever
> sysinstall, look at the desktopBSD installer (bsdinstaller) and
> finstall. I'm not sure what the status of either of these 2 are though.
I was holding off on a
On Tue, Jun 09, 2009 at 04:57:30PM +0200, Dan Naumov wrote:
> > UFS2+SoftUpdates works fine on properly configured UFS2 - and very fast.
> Yes, UFS2+SoftUpdates is very fast, however, in the case of a power
> loss or having to pull the plug on a locked up system, it has a
> noticeably higher chance
On 9/6/09 15:57, Dan Naumov wrote:
>> UFS2+SoftUpdates works fine on properly configured UFS2 - and very fast.
>>
> Yes, UFS2+SoftUpdates is very fast, however, in the case of a power
> loss or having to pull the plug on a locked up system, it has a
> noticeably higher chance of leaving you wi
> UFS2+SoftUpdates works fine on properly configured UFS2 - and very fast.
Yes, UFS2+SoftUpdates is very fast, however, in the case of a power
loss or having to pull the plug on a locked up system, it has a
noticeably higher chance of leaving you with an unbootable system than
if you were using Lin
Is there any work going on to make sysinstall recognize and abe able
to create and work with GJOURNAL and ZFS? In the days of 1,5-2,0
terabyte harddrives, UFS2 + SoftUpdates simply doesn't cut it anymore,
UFS2+SoftUpdates works fine on properly configured UFS2 - and very fast.
Why you need sysin
On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 5:23 PM, Rainer Duffner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mass-installation via PXE-booting is a mess (how can you have to pack the
> install.cfg file into the mfsroot diskimage???).
I have done some work on a tool for rapidly imaging many FreeBSD
systems and a set of packages us
Gary Jennejohn wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 09:30:17 -0700
Randy Bush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think the best route to that is to have a separate utility for managing disk
partitioning. The installer can then use that utility, and sysadmins can
also use it later after the system is insta
John Baldwin wrote:
> On Thursday 17 July 2008 12:30:17 pm Randy Bush wrote:
>>> I think the best route to that is to have a separate utility for managing
>>> disk partitioning. The installer can then use that utility, and
>>> sysadmins can also use it later after the system is installed.
>> i oft
On Thursday 17 July 2008 12:30:17 pm Randy Bush wrote:
> > I think the best route to that is to have a separate utility for managing
> > disk partitioning. The installer can then use that utility, and
> > sysadmins can also use it later after the system is installed.
>
> i often invoke sysinstall
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 09:30:17 -0700
Randy Bush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I think the best route to that is to have a separate utility for managing
> > disk
> > partitioning. The installer can then use that utility, and sysadmins can
> > also use it later after the system is installed.
>
>
> I think the best route to that is to have a separate utility for managing
> disk
> partitioning. The installer can then use that utility, and sysadmins can
> also use it later after the system is installed.
i often invoke sysinstall on a running system to slice/partition/etc a
new drive
ran
On Saturday 05 July 2008 11:22:09 am Robert Watson wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Jul 2008, Mike Makonnen wrote:
>
> > The installer can already install a basic FreeBSD system (including the
> > ports collection) from CD, UFS, or DOS partition. I'm currently working on
> > getting FTP/HTTP/NFS installation
On Jul 9, 2008, at 10:19 PM, Mike Makonnen wrote:
Yes, libdisk is bad. GEOM_PART has been designed
for use by installers. It can be interfaced
faily easily. See gpart(8) for example.
Is there documentation for the geom_part API somewhere (I couldn't
find any)
or do I have to look at gpart(
Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
On Jul 8, 2008, at 12:04 PM, Rink Springer wrote:
On Tue, Jul 08, 2008 at 05:53:45PM +0300, Mike Makonnen wrote:
Freddie Cash wrote:
The tricky part will be getting the disk slicing, slice partitioning,
and filesystem formatting to work reliably, with all the power o
On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 8:00 AM, Mike Makonnen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>> Hear, hear! To be honest, this is the only bit about the current
>>> sysinstall that I really dislike: the fact that it can be used for
>>> post-installation configuration and package installat
On Mon, Jul 07, 2008 at 11:55:41AM -0700, Freddie Cash wrote:
>
> IMO, the installer should allow you to partition the disk(s), format
> the partition(s), install the OS, configure a user, and reboot the
> system. Anything beyond that should be handled by the OS tools, from
> within the installed
On Jul 8, 2008, at 12:04 PM, Rink Springer wrote:
On Tue, Jul 08, 2008 at 05:53:45PM +0300, Mike Makonnen wrote:
Freddie Cash wrote:
The tricky part will be getting the disk slicing, slice
partitioning,
and filesystem formatting to work reliably, with all the power of
FreeBSD's GEOM modul
On Tue, Jul 08, 2008 at 05:53:45PM +0300, Mike Makonnen wrote:
> Freddie Cash wrote:
> >
> > The tricky part will be getting the disk slicing, slice partitioning,
> > and filesystem formatting to work reliably, with all the power of
> > FreeBSD's GEOM modules, and ZFS.
> >
>
> Actually, this is
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hear, hear! To be honest, this is the only bit about the current
sysinstall that I really dislike: the fact that it can be used for
post-installation configuration and package installation. This causes
no end of trouble for newbies, who seem to view sysinstall as "The
Freddie Cash wrote:
The tricky part will be getting the disk slicing, slice partitioning,
and filesystem formatting to work reliably, with all the power of
FreeBSD's GEOM modules, and ZFS.
Actually, this is probably the easiest part (at least for UFS). The
libdisk(3) library abstracts most o
> Hear, hear! To be honest, this is the only bit about the current
> sysinstall that I really dislike: the fact that it can be used for
> post-installation configuration and package installation. This causes
> no end of trouble for newbies, who seem to view sysinstall as "The One
> True System
:...
:minimalist people, while a graphical installer running on top of a
:live CD, like in many Linux distributions, Ubuntu, etc. could be
:envisioned. The DragonFlyBSD installer runs on top of a live CD, this is
:the easiest way to have a full featured installer, but this requires a
:machine with
On Sat, Jul 5, 2008 at 7:59 AM, Mike Makonnen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Also, the installer's job should only be to install a useable system.
> Post-installation chores like configuration,
> adding/removing users, etc should be done by another application. You
> shouldn't need the installer o
On Sun, 06 Jul 2008 10:51:10 +0300, Giorgos Keramidas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 14:31:51 +0200, "Paul B. Mahol" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On 7/4/08, Randy Bush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This is why there are precompiled packages on ftp.freebsd.org which you
can
On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 14:31:51 +0200, "Paul B. Mahol" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 7/4/08, Randy Bush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> This is why there are precompiled packages on ftp.freebsd.org which you
>>> can install with 'pkg_add -r'. You can install them from any FTP
>>> mirror, actually; ju
On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 09:38:37 +0300, "Aggelidis Nikos" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I'm sorry I started a kind of flame war. All I wanted was two
>> things: 1. CD's that installed without being switched in and out
>> dozens of times. That was fixed by the suggestion of using a DVD. I
>> didn't e
On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 10:56:29 +0200, Holger Kipp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dear Antoine Brunel,
>
> I completely 100% agree. Actually I don't see the need for a new
> sysinstall. It does what it needs to do. I have seen the later
> RH- and SUSE-Installer, but I don't want them. What's the use of
>
Robert Watson wrote:
On Sat, 5 Jul 2008, Mike Makonnen wrote:
The installer can already install a basic FreeBSD system (including
the ports collection) from CD, UFS, or DOS partition. I'm currently
working on getting FTP/HTTP/NFS installation to work. Next on my list
after that is setting Dat
> Sounds pretty much in line with what I was looking for. However, I
> think I would like to see it be a bit more complete than sysinstall in
> the area of geom partition labeling (concat/strip/raid/encryption), and
> perhaps also ZFS support. I realize that adds complexity a fair amount,
> but o
On Sat, 5 Jul 2008, Mike Makonnen wrote:
The installer can already install a basic FreeBSD system (including the
ports collection) from CD, UFS, or DOS partition. I'm currently working on
getting FTP/HTTP/NFS installation to work. Next on my list after that is
setting Date and Time Zone. At th
Robert Watson wrote:
For me, it's really about minimizing the time to get to a generic
install from a CD or DVD. Most of the time, I don't do a lot of
customization during the install -- I configure machines using DHCP, I
add most packages later, and I tend to use default disk layouts since
On 2008-Jul-03 23:04:10 -0700, Rob Lytle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>FreeBSD partition, and install OpenBSD which has impeccable documentation.
Having tried to make sense of the OpenBSD carp documentation, I can
only assume that is meant as a joke.
--
Peter Jeremy
Please excuse any delays as the
> Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 21:26:16 -0700
> From: "Rob Lytle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Hi Kevin,
>
> The sysinstall dependency problem has existed for 10 years, so I doubt that
> its unique to me. It has occurred in every installation I have ever done.
>
> I use portupgrade for all ports.
>
> i s
On 7/4/08, Randy Bush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> This is why there are precompiled packages on ftp.freebsd.org which you
>> can install with 'pkg_add -r'. You can install them from any FTP
>> mirror, actually; just point PACKAGEROOT at the mirror:
>
> why isn't this stuff in the docs? oh, it i
"Rob Lytle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> i strongly disagree with using ports for huge packages. I don't have the
> time to waste compiling. Plus, you are presented with numerous nag screens
> so you have to babysit the whole process.
This is why there are precompiled packages on ftp.freebsd.or
On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 10:58 PM, Rob Lytle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 10:06 PM, Greg Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>> On 2008-07-03, Rob Lytle wrote:
>>
>> > > You can get rid of the nag screens by putting "BATCH=yes" into
>> > > /etc/make.conf. (Not that this
On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 10:06 PM, Greg Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On 2008-07-03, Rob Lytle wrote:
>
> > > You can get rid of the nag screens by putting "BATCH=yes" into
> > > /etc/make.conf. (Not that this negates your other points.)
> >
> > What the hell does "yes" mean? That all option
> I'm sorry I started a kind of flame war. All I wanted was two things: 1.
> CD's that installed without being switched in and out dozens of times. That
> was fixed by the suggestion of using a DVD. I didn't even know the DVD
> install existed, but will do that next time.
>
I also had the same
Rob Lytle wrote:
You can get rid of the nag screens by putting "BATCH=yes" into
/etc/make.conf. (Not that this negates your other points.)
What the hell does "yes" mean? That all option boxes are checked, or none
at all? I have never seen this explained anywhere.
It means, "yeah, what
On 2008-07-03, Rob Lytle wrote:
> > You can get rid of the nag screens by putting "BATCH=yes" into
> > /etc/make.conf. (Not that this negates your other points.)
>
> What the hell does "yes" mean? That all option boxes are checked, or none
> at all? I have never seen this explained anywhere.
Rob Lytle wrote:
On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 9:33 PM, Stephen Montgomery-Smith <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Rob Lytle wrote:
Hi Kevin,
The sysinstall dependency problem has existed for 10 years, so I doubt
that
its unique to me. It has occurred in every installation I have ever done.
I use port
On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 9:33 PM, Stephen Montgomery-Smith <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Rob Lytle wrote:
>
>> Hi Kevin,
>>
>> The sysinstall dependency problem has existed for 10 years, so I doubt
>> that
>> its unique to me. It has occurred in every installation I have ever done.
>>
>> I use por
Rob Lytle wrote:
Hi Kevin,
The sysinstall dependency problem has existed for 10 years, so I doubt that
its unique to me. It has occurred in every installation I have ever done.
I use portupgrade for all ports.
i strongly disagree with using ports for huge packages. I don't have the
time to
Hi Kevin,
The sysinstall dependency problem has existed for 10 years, so I doubt that
its unique to me. It has occurred in every installation I have ever done.
I use portupgrade for all ports.
i strongly disagree with using ports for huge packages. I don't have the
time to waste compiling. P
On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 23:21:00 +0200
Michel Talon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> evolve easily. The argument that there sould be no external dependency
> seems to me inspired by the NIH syndrom.
I think your seeming is wrong. I believe it's inspired by the belief
that the base system should be self-rep
Hi all
I suggest this "flame" to stop right now... because everybody is ok
finally
I agree with Rob in the fact that 'sysinstall' is a bit disturbing tool
with its way of working: the "enter" key, the error messages if HTTP
source is unavailable, etc
and I confess I had to re-insta
> Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 21:28:50 -0700
> From: "Rob Lytle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Hi All,
>
> I'm sorry I started a kind of flame war. All I wanted was two things: 1.
> CD's that installed without being switched in and out dozens of times. That
> was fixed by the s
Doug Barton wrote:
> Mike Makonnen has some very interesting ideas on this topic:
> http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2007-December/081400.html
>
> FWIW, I think that there are 3 basic requirements for a new installer:
>
> 1. It should be library-based and therefore be capable o
2008/7/3 Doug Barton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 1. It should be library-based and therefore be capable of supporting at
> least a few different UIs (see above).
> 2. At least one of those UIs should be functional over a standard serial
> console.
> 3. It should be scriptable.
I was thinking of doing
On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 23:36:09 -0400
"Sean Cavanaugh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is the first time I ever actually downloaded all 3 CD's so i
> didn't know what I was getting into. I had always just used the
> first CD for the initial install, then ports for everything else.
> Next time I wi
Mike Makonnen has some very interesting ideas on this topic:
http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2007-December/081400.html
FWIW, I think that there are 3 basic requirements for a new installer:
1. It should be library-based and therefore be capable of supporting
at least a few di
Tim Kientzle wrote:
I don't think a graphical installer is necessarily
the answer to this. Simply obeying long-established
conventions for keyboard usage (ENTER selects the
thing under the cursor, for instance, instead of
having to TAB to the "OK" button first) would go
a long ways.
The versi
> Robert Watson wrote:
>> On Thu, 3 Jul 2008, Lothar Braun wrote:
>>
>>> Robert Watson wrote:
>>>
My primary concern about some of these replacement installer
projects
is that they've placed a strong focus on making them graphical
-- I
actually couldn't care less about GUI
Lothar Braun wrote:
What about having two utilities for the installation process? Something
like a very small (non-gui/non-X) version of "sysinstall" that just
installs a base system and only has the functionality to
- partition/label a disk
- configure the network (if needed for installation
Robert Watson wrote:
On Thu, 3 Jul 2008, Lothar Braun wrote:
Robert Watson wrote:
My primary concern about some of these replacement installer projects
is that they've placed a strong focus on making them graphical -- I
actually couldn't care less about GUIs (and I think they actually
hurt
Lothar Braun schrieb:
Robert Watson wrote:
My primary concern about some of these replacement installer projects
is that they've placed a strong focus on making them graphical -- I
actually couldn't care less about GUIs (and I think they actually
hurt my configurations, since I use serial cons
Holger Kipp wrote:
I completely 100% agree. Actually I don't see the need for a new
sysinstall. It does what it needs to do. I have seen the later
RH- and SUSE-Installer, but I don't want them. What's the use of
a graphical installer?
One big problem with the current installer: The
current ke
On Thu, 2008-07-03 at 11:33 +0200, Michel Talon wrote:
> Antoine BRUNEL wrote:
>
> > In conclusion, I can agree you in that the "sysinstall" soft is a bit
> > out-dated, but it respond on a need of a BSD philosophy: just installing
> > a working operating system. All the later tasks have to be
On Wed, 2008-07-02 at 11:23 -0700, Rob Lytle wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> My depressing analysis- YMMV. I've used FreeBSD since 1998.
>
> 1..Installing the packages off of the menu on the 3 CDROMs is an incredibly
> tedious miserable process. I had to switch out the CD's around 40 times.
> If you don't
Antoine BRUNEL wrote:
> In conclusion, I can agree you in that the "sysinstall" soft is a bit
> out-dated, but it respond on a need of a BSD philosophy: just installing
> a working operating system. All the later tasks have to be done by
> "hands". But that's exactly what I wanted when I replac
Dear Antoine Brunel,
I completely 100% agree. Actually I don't see the need for a new
sysinstall. It does what it needs to do. I have seen the later
RH- and SUSE-Installer, but I don't want them. What's the use of
a graphical installer?
The only thing endusers might need is the choice of installi
Robert Watson wrote:
My
primary concern about some of these replacement installer projects is
that they've placed a strong focus on making them graphical -- I
actually couldn't care less about GUIs (and I think they actually hurt
my configurations, since I use serial consoles a lot), but what
I've picked out one or two of your complaints only.
On Thursday 03 July 2008 00:16, Curtis Penner wrote:
> Let us take this further.
>
> Let's compare BSD to the Linux install solutions. Well, lets not, Linux
> is so far ahead of BSD. Linux understands the user.
Really? I tried installing Kubun
1 - 100 of 182 matches
Mail list logo
