Re: implemented features (Re: Decision time....)

[Erik Wikström <erik-wikstrom@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 2007-06-06 01:33, Bill Hacker wrote:
> talon@lpthe.jussieu.fr wrote:
> > km b wrote:
> >
> > > On 6/5/07, Michel Talon <talon@lpthe.jussieu.fr> wrote:
> *snip* (64 bit issues)
>
> > whatever he sees fit for his project. My own prejudice is that having a
> > good installer and a good package management system (including a good
> > upgrade mechanism) is *extremely* important, far more than any kernel
> > nicety. This is clearly the Achilles heel of all BSD systems. Beleive it or
> > not, the talent to develop such tools is completely orthogonal to the
> > talent to do kernel programming.
>
> I don't see a lot wrong with pkgsrc.  Nor any 'easy' (read 'with available 
> resources') way to improve upon it.
>
> Though I personally still prefer the scope of the FreeBSD ports tree, we all 
> know the huge 'count' of ports has a lot of redundancy and no small amount of 
> plain useless or broken junk. So pkgsrc's smaller count is not really all that 
> much less w/r what can actually be *utilized*.
>
> As far as 'good installer', I experiment with anywhere from half a dozen OS in 
> any given year.
>
> My all-time favorite intaller - 1970's to this very week - remains the legacy 
> FreeBSD 'sysinstall'.
>
> Sorry 'bout that, I know a lot of work has been put into DFLY's own installer, 
> and more coming - but given the choice I'd prefer 'sysinstall' even over the 
> best-of-breed Loonix variants.
>
> It is always readable, local console or remote ssh, gives me the flexibility I 
> need - not only for FreeBSD, but to set up HDD for DragonFly and other OS'en as 
> well. It doesn't use fonts that eye-confuse, either, and I've gotten 'adjusted' 
> to the way one exits/navigates back up the tree, though that *could* be improved.
>
> Whatever the direction is to be, having a solid kernel and core is far more 
> important that a slick installer to put in place a 'still needs work' OS.

So true, a lot of people complain about OpenBSD's installer because it 
is the way it is. But I don't see the problem, there are excellent 
guides available and you only install once so even if the installer is 
not the best it's not something you have to live with day in and day 
out. The kernel on the other hand must be stable since you'll be using 
it every minute of the time you are running the system.

--
Erik Wikström