Re: Sysinstall is still inadequate after all of these years / sorry I started flame war

From: Rob Lytle <jan6146_at_gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 21:28:50 -0700
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 suggestion of using a DVD.  I didn't even know the DVD
install existed, but will do that next time.

2.  Being able to use Sysinstall and not having it crash when a dependency
is already present.  Sometimes I like to use Sysinstall to  install gigantic
packages where the compile time is 26 hours, e.g KDE metapackage, and my
notebook uses an Intel Core 2 Duo at 2Ghz or thereabout.  That is one hell
of a long compile time.  For this request I will just have to wait for
FreeBSD 10.0.

Sincerely,  Rob



On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 5:54 PM, Mike Meyer <mwm_at_mired.org> wrote:

> On Wed, 02 Jul 2008 15:16:27 -0700
> Curtis Penner <curtis.penner2_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > BSD has a better overall core OS then the other UNIX flavors.
>
> I disagree, but that's another debate. BSD is still my desktop OS of
> choice.
>
> > So what is wrong?
> >
> > It doesn't have the native 3rd party applications. Why? Not enough
> > users. Why? Because it is hard to get what you want unless you are tech
> > savvy.
>
> Huh? The ports collection has nearly 19 thousand entries in it. Is
> there another OS with *anything* like that? The blastwave folks were
> recently bragging that they were going to hit 1800!
>
> Yeah, if you want *proprietary* tools, you lose. As far as I can tell,
> that kills you on three issues: Flash, high-end graphics performance,
> and virtualization tools. For pretty much everything else I've run
> into, we seem to do ok.
>
> > When you do a system install it is like jumping back to the 80's.  The
> > front-end is like something from the DOS days.  You have to be tech
> > savvy to know what you want to do.  You have to search out all the
> > variations of the applications (tedious and unnecessary) to get a full
> > package -- Examples: Postgres, PHP, etc.  To add wireless (very common
> > these day), you better set aside as much time or more as doing the
> > initial install.
>
> I find this to be the case on *every* system. I've never managed to
> find a system that provided *everything* I needed in an install. So I
> inevitably wind up wading through a see of repositories and
> dependencies to get what I need. For GNU/Linux, that usually means
> installing the tools I need to *build* what I actually
> need. Tedious and unnecessary would be a step *up*.
>
> > Given that the system is rock solid, you think more people would develop
> > on it, at least secondarily.  But no.  Java - go fish.  All the
> > development environments and features that go with it (Eclipse, NetBean,
> > Hibernation, Sturts, and so forth) are painful to get.  You feel like a
> > rabbit jumping around, and then it most likely doesn't work.  That is
> > such a turn off.
>
> Ok, I don't do Java (because I like OO programming and want to keep it
> that way!), but I found three of the four things in the ports tree
> (assuming that Sturts is actually Struts, anyway). Which means the
> packages should be there as well.
>
> > As for the installs, to get an idea of how to package an install, look
> > at the current install packages that are from the Linux side. You don't
> > have to copy, but emulate.  (Oh, the best out-of-the-box is Apple.)
>
> I'm not sure the best out of the box is Apple, but I haven't installed
> new Sun hardware in a *long* time. But Apple boxes come out of the box
> installed - that's hard to beat.
>
> As for GNU/Linux, the only install that comes close to installing a
> usable system is Gentoo. The other all seem to want to compete with
> windows, and treat their users like idiots who need every choice made
> for them.
>
> > I have installed Linux, MacOS, HPUX, Solaris, Window (NT, XP, Vista),
> > and the BSDs, and I have found the BSDs to be so yesterday that there is
> > little in common with the rest.
>
> Hmm. Which Solaris did you use? SXCE b89 looks an awful lot like a
> FreeBSD install, except they do it under X with a GUI (so you need
> 3/4ths of a gig just to run the installer) - including progress
> messages to an xterm - instead of the console. 2008.05 looks amazingly
> like a GNU/Linux install - all pointy/clicky, no choices about what
> you want, you get 3 gig of lawn ornaments which I personally had no
> use for on the server in question (which is how I came to learn what
> an SXCE install looks like). Not to mention that after being
> installed, it's slower than Vista even when it's got more than twice
> the horsepower underneath it.
>
> > Porting, so that applications that matter go native, we need more
> > installs and more people on the systems.  That means more installs to
> > laptops. The installs have to be seamless and complete.  That mean
> > getting more Open Source people and companies to compile and distribute
> BSD.
>
> I believe we already have a bigger, better application repository than
> any other current Unix or Unix-like system. However, I can't find hard
> numbers for rpm or deb-based distributions repositories. But "rpms" or
> "debs" found scattered around the net aren't a "repository"; they
> won't work except against what they were build against, and trying to
> get them to is a *real* recipe for frustration.
>
> > I am looking forward to a time when installing BSD is point and click
> > with not much understanding of what is going on (unless I want to go
> > advance and do special custom work).
>
> Is it really that simple? If we had an installer that looked as pretty
> as a van gogh, and all you had to do was enter your country and postal
> code and it then installed the base system, you wouldn't be happy (I
> certainly wouldn't mind such a thing)?
>
> I suspect that what you *really* want - and what the GNU/Linux
> distros, and Solaris 2008.05, and OSX try to provide - is a system
> with everything you want pre-installed, without you having to figure
> it out how to use a package system or anything else that looks the
> least bit like work.
>
> Personally, no single system can do that for me. What I want on my
> desktop is different from what pretty much anyone else wants on their
> desktop is different from what I want on a router is different from
> what I want on a mail server is different from what I want on a web
> server is different from what I want on try-python.mired.org. Things
> that I can't do without on some are things that ask to be pwn'ed on
> others, and in some cases I want the same functionality from different
> tools on different systems.
>
> I don't care how familiar you are with a system, it's *far* easier to
> add the things you know you want to a solid base than it is to remove
> crap that will cause you headaches later from a distro whose design
> criteria was maximizing installations, hence checking off as many
> features on a checklist as possible. On a desktop box, unneeded tools
> are just a waste of space; on a server, they can be an open invitation
> to pwn your server.
>
> That said - yeah, our installer is old and primitive. But it'll run on
> almost nothing (3/4ths of a GIG just to run the
> INSTALLER!?!?!?). There are people working on improving it, but
> frankly, the needed improvements are largely cosmetic, not
> conceptual. Any replacement for the installer should require less work
> but not less smarts. It needs to ask questions, because the correct
> answer to every general question about what to install is "it depends
> on what you want it for."
>
> For people who just want to muck about with a desktop, there are a
> couple of FreeBSD distributions with live CD's and a plethora of
> applications installed, etc. That's the right way to go about
> attracting an audience from the desktop.
>
> FreeBSD is the easiest system I know of to tailor to my needs. So long
> as that remains true, it will remain my OS of choice.
>
>   <mike
> --
> Mike Meyer <mwm_at_mired.org>
> http://www.mired.org/consulting.html
> Independent Network/Unix/Perforce consultant, email for more information.
>
> O< ascii ribbon campaign - stop html mail - www.asciiribbon.org
>



-- 
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.youtube.com/user/whiteflluffyclouds
(Ham radio videos)
Received on Thu Jul 03 2008 - 02:28:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:39:32 UTC