[nycbug-talk] current FreeBSD Advocacy thread

Pete Wright pete
Wed Mar 10 09:25:55 EST 2004

G. Rosamond wrote:

><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.
i very much agree here.  and i think there are several good arguments 
agains MS being a easy installer, if it was so easy i think we would not 
see so many security problems with MS.  alot of the holes w/ windows 
seem to stem from services that are inabled that are not even 
neccessary.  an "easy" installer in my opinion would protect the user 
from most of these issues...

>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.
i'm so sure i agree with that, sure RedHat's default installer has all 
sorts of GUI's and stuff, but you can still easilly automate, and sctipt 
anaconda (thier installer).  and you still can install redhat with two 
floppies via an http/ftp/nfs connection, that's something i've never 
seen with windows.  I also wouldn't say that slackware or debian are 
following MS's pattern of point and click ui's while removing the user 
from what's really going on...i hope in the future distro. maintains do 
not fall into this trap tho...

>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.

here here.

>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?

Pete Wright
email:  pete at nomadlogic.org
mobile: 917.415.9866
web:    www.nomadlogic.org/~pete

More information about the talk mailing list