[nycbug-talk] current FreeBSD Advocacy thread

[G. Rosamond]

<total snip>

I'm confused by a number of things in this FBSD installer discussion.

First, so much of what makes Microsoft installer so "easy" to people is
that they've been the standard for so long now to many of the people
having that perception.  It's not about the colors, graphics, etc.  Form
and substance are two different things.

What you're building with a BSD install is quite different than with a
desktop or server Microsoft install.

I do think the FBSD installer is easy to use.  And with the Handbook
within five miles of you, it's very easy.

The first question is this, does *easy* (in the critics' perceptions)
just mean conforming to the Microsoft pattern?  I believe the answer is
yes.  That's the pattern of the Linux distributions, whether anyone
wants to admit it or not.

But is that what the BSDs in general need?  I don't believe so.  The
next open source 'tech' who tells me the FBSD install process is
difficult, I will shoot.

The primary goal of FBSD is performance and stability on i386, at least
originally.  NetBSD is about portability.  OpenBSD is about security.

If those are the general project goals, I hardly think the desktop
market is the next quick step, and with it, a cutsey gui installer.

The role of the BSD's is servers, embedded systems, appliances, etc.  If
a lot of BSD people are running BSD on the desktop, great.  But to shift
any focus to that arena is a distraction.  Not that I don't want to see
more native BSD porting of the desktop apps. . .But at the end of the
day, OS X pretty much kicks everyone else's rump hands-down.

I agree with Marc S. that further unifying the BSD's with an installer
would be great.  OpenSSH is the default for all, why not do the same
with the installer?

g