GUI installer

[alie]

why FreeBSD doesnt have GUI installer ? please give me a reason i think GUI installer is good for newbie

-Alie

[Unixworld]

Good question, i think this might be a good forward-to-devels
matter :)

For a noob (being one, too), a GUI-installer would be just
the preffered way, text-based installs are more difficult.
I recall playing around with an OpenBSD-version,
and you might guess, it was even worse than any other install
utility i have come across :)

Me personally can't give you any particular reason,
why a GUI-installer is still not included (or even, never planned?)
in any FreeBSD-version...

[dclau]

Actually, there is a project on sourceforge.net, finstall (http://sourceforge.net/projects/finstall) (work-in-progress), looks quite promising to me.
More details here: http://wiki.freebsd.org/finstall/Architecture, all i need now is patience.

[Maledictus]

Just use DesktopBSD, it's FreeBSD with another installer.

[kamikaze]

The FreeBSD installer is a GUI installer.

What you want is a prettier GUI or one that gives you less choices.

[lumiwa]

The FreeBSD installer is a GUI installer.

What you want is a prettier GUI or one that gives you less choices.

As a non computer educated person I agree with the above comment 100%!
Why should be GUI better?

[alie]

hmmm, good answer, but still GUI Installer with nice graphical environtment is better(eye catching). for me(new bie) text based installer is confusing, especially FreeBSD installer(Sysinstall) that have a lot of options/choices...

i think if FreeBSD have GUI installer that provide less choices, like desktop env, partition, password, etc can attract users to use it for desktop :)

and the fact is "world's getting lazier" :D

most of famous application, OS, handset/mobile phone/PDA have a nice GUI

-Alie

[hedwards]

why FreeBSD doesnt have GUI installer ? please give me a reason i think GUI installer is good for newbie

-Alie
The one we have works well over all. It certainly gives me far fewer headaches than the Linux installers do. And definitely fewer than the Windows one does.

That being said, it will ultimately need to be replaced because of the "ZOMG ancient installer" problem, I'm not entirely sure what the problem really is because there is a basic install, and that's not any harder than the early stages of a Windows install. And one really ought to be printing out a set of install instructions the first time through any OS install.

I believe that there are a couple of projects up and running to add a more proper install program, but really a prettier less flexible GUI isn't going to do anything for people beyond making it less scary the first time through.

[tangram]

Why a GUI installer? Attract users to use it for desktop? Come one.. that's why PCBSD is around.

The current installer is the best choice as it can be as easily used for server and desktop installs. No need for bloat with a live CD or whatever.

FreeBSD needs to continue it's focus on reliability and flexibility not needless user friendliness.

Any FreeBSD user just needs to know that the Handbook exists, if he faces any obstacle while installing the Handbook provides the complete install procedure.

[bsddaemon]

The FreeBSD installer is a GUI installer.


No, it isnt GUI, it is text based.

[smooth]

The FreeBSD installer is a GUI installer.

What you want is a prettier GUI or one that gives you less choices.

good answer no need for GUI installer ;)

[Ole]

why FreeBSD doesnt have GUI installer ? please give me a reason i think GUI installer is good for newbie

-Alie

http://www.bsdcan.org/2008/schedule/events/69.en.html
Ivan Voras prepared .ISO with finstall: http://ivoras.sharanet.org/stuff/freebsd7-finstall-alpha4.iso.bz2
So you can see finstall in action

[kamikaze]

No, it isnt GUI, it is text based.Sure it's a GUI. It has dialogues, windows, checkboxes. That it runs in text mode doesn't make it less of a GUI. It's just a technical limitation that makes it look less fancy.

[Brandybuck]

No, it isnt GUI, it is text based.
It is a GUI. The fact that it's drawn with text characters instead of pixels makes no differences. The only thing it's missing that a Fedora or SuSE installer has is mouse support.

I would like to see a new installer, but not because I want something more graphical, but because sysinstall is getting long in the tooth. It needs to be replaced with something more streamlined, both architecturally and in terms of workflow.

[Barnie]

GUI = Graphican User Interface
TUI = Text User Interface

It's a textbased user interface and not graphical. But this is not the key!

The UI can be improved because the navigation is not optimal. The improvement should be not realy graphical.

My experience with the current UI is not so good, because the selection of an option and the confirmation (OK-button) is realy tricky. I must always think if I should press RETURN or TAB or SPACE BAR. This has not directly to do with text or graphical UIs.

I think the text base UI can be improved. Or there should be a graphical UI with mouse support.

[dclau]

Why a GUI installer? Attract users to use it for desktop? Come one.. that's why PCBSD is around.

The current installer is the best choice as it can be as easily used for server and desktop installs. No need for bloat with a live CD or whatever.

FreeBSD needs to continue it's focus on reliability and flexibility not needless user friendliness.

Any FreeBSD user just needs to know that the Handbook exists, if he faces any obstacle while installing the Handbook provides the complete install procedure.
I agree.
But, quoting the wiki (http://wiki.freebsd.org/finstall/Architecture):Support for installing soft-RAID devices (for starts, gmirror).
...
The intention is that the back-end is available for use for multiple front-ends, some of which could have user interfaces (either graphical or textual), but some of which could be completely automated (essentially a batch file of XML-RPC calls).Good old sysinstall is great, proven, reliable, but it would be nice to have some of the geoms' goodies available at install time, or it's just me?

[marius]

Considering that FreeBSD is mainly a server operating system, I see no reason to have a graphical installer. We should also keep in mind that some people use very old hardware, and may be unable to use a resource hungry graphical installer. Of course, if we get a graphical installer like finstall, it should be possible to choose whether you want to use the graphical or text-based installer.

Whatever happens, I must admit that I've used better installers than sysinstall, although it does its job quite well.

[tangram]

The current sysinstall just works great on any system and has a small footprint while retaining loads of helpful information. Another thing I like about it is that you can use it for loads of after-install configuration and even package install.

Is it the best installer for *nix systems? No, it needs to support additional stuff like support for software raid, zfs, kill the disc swap (6.4 already fixed this I believe), etc.

Imho, the default should still follow ncurses approach with maybe a GUI as an option.

[MartijnAtLico]

I love the FreeBSD installer.. there's no OS that installs faster than the FreeBSD Expert install. I doubt that any GUI installer can match that speed & flexibilty.

[anemos]

I think that there are other things that need to be improved first before making a more fancy installer.
As Barnie said: My experience with the current UI is not so good, because the selection of an option and the confirmation (OK-button) is realy tricky. I must always think if I should press RETURN or TAB or SPACE BAR. This has not directly to do with text or graphical UIs. and I agree.

Other than that, people coming to FreeBSD already have at least some small experience with Unix-like OSes thus it is quite easy for them to make an installation through sysinstall. If not, then this text-based-you-name-it-installer is their baptism of fire.

I like the way the installer is and thinking of FreeBSD as an open source project I'd say that priority must be set to other fields such as less CD's shifting during installation etc.

[Erratus]

An installation procedure needs some information and decisions from the human installer. Problem is that first users of FreeBSD are not that skilled as many forum members here. Remember your own first installation of an OS.

So what can a first (desktop-)user expect from a completed FreeBSD installtion routine?

1. Hacking on the keyboard in his language.
2. Using his functionable wheelmouse.
3. Looking at reasonable monitor resolution.
4. Hearing his heavy metal CD without consultion of any handbook.
5. Having a testpage printed on his printer.
6. Have a safe internet connection if desired.

Now think for a moment, and guess how long it takes a person to get all 6 points with no UNIX/Linux experience. Do I hear someone laughing? How did you guys start?

For now a newbie needs a working XP with internet next to his FreeBSD installation project to google all the information he needs to finish the setup. Why? Cause reading the handbook is just not enough. You have to get some understanding for what you are doing. That's the point and this leads into trial and error loop with (hopefully) knowledge as exit. But frustration is an exit too.

A good installation routine does not have to be necessarily a GUI, but assisting hints for installation can better be realized with a GUI. Just a nice GUI for distraction is for the bin (how often do you want to look on it?).

Keep in mind, that success stories of any OS depend on the growing number of systems installed.

-Erratus

[cmanns]

You should try OpenBSD if you feel FreeBSD is difficult.

The first OS I tried in reply to the post above was 95 or 98 upgrade disk (Was 8yrs old or so if I recall) I did a fresh reformat without the full install cd, had to do some dos stuff.

I like the FreeBSD installer compared to CentOS or Debian for example. I didn't learn anything in particular using it, it's documented well but you get a hands on feeling, once your in FreeBSD it's a basic server OS which you may transform into workstation/desktop usage. So either way you're going to have to work alittle bit to get GUI's.

PC-BSD, DesktopBSD both exist for this purpose.

Now the OpenBSD installer, that was a fun experience

[SeanC]

An installation procedure needs some information and decisions from the human installer. Problem is that first users of FreeBSD are not that skilled as many forum members here.

No, not at first.


How did you guys start?

I screwed up and tried it until I got it right.


But frustration is an exit too.


But, if you do persist, you will appreciate what you have learned. FreeBSD forces you to understand the OS and your hardware. Frankly put, a first time user that quits because it is "too hard" is no great loss.

[robertclemens]

I never understand why people feel they should keep things harder just to keep "newbies" out. Not everyone agrees with this and certainly not everyone that posted but obviously some people do.

Adding finstall (or whatever gui variant) does not mean one or the other. Most certainly there would just be an additional option on booting to choose the graphical installer in an X envrionment.

So why are people having a hard time with this? The text installer isn't going anywhere and the graphical may prove useful. Embrace the opportunity for change. You wouldn't be forced to change one thing in effort to help others.

Boggles my mind sometimes.

[lme@]

The benefit of a new installer we can get rid of sysinstall at last which is a PITA to maintain and enhance.
Sysinstall doesn't allow a user to use all the fine things like gmirror, gjournal, geli, ZFS, ...
PC-BSD's GUI installer allows you to install on ZFS or select gjournaling, but why should this only be for desktop users? I can't wait for finstall to get finished. :)

[SeanC]

I never understand why people feel they should keep things harder just to keep "newbies" out.

It's not harder. It's different and new to someone coming from Windows, Apple or Ubuntu.

Sysinstall doesn't keep newbies out. Laziness does. We were all first-time users once.

[hedwards]

GUI = Graphican User Interface
TUI = Text User Interface

It's a textbased user interface and not graphical. But this is not the key!
That's not accurate at all. User interfaces can be GUI or CLI, a TUI as you put it can be of either the GUI or CLI variety. Dosshell for example was a text based GUI.

But the difference you're pointing at doesn't exist. A GUI can be text based, but a CLI really can't be graphical. Well technically it could be if one were to waste a lot of resources on pictures around it that don't have to do with the actual commands.
I never understand why people feel they should keep things harder just to keep "newbies" out. Not everyone agrees with this and certainly not everyone that posted but obviously some people do.
Because it's a lot of work for very little benefit. When I started to use computers that's all we had, it wasn't really any more simplified than that, and I'm rather tempted to order you off of my lawn. People in this day and age are spoiled and while I don't have any issues with a more prettified install program being added, there just isn't much interest in installing one.

And ultimately, install programs do, like it or not, serve as a bit of a screen to keep people that aren't going to do any work later on out. Sure we could make the install program even easier than the ridiculously easy one we have now, but what happens after the OS is installed? At what point do the developers no longer have to do absolutely everything for the user?

[roddierod]

When I started to use computers that's all we had, it wasn't really any more simplified than that, and I'm rather tempted to order you off of my lawn. People in this day and age are spoiled

Thank you :)

[robertclemens]

Because it's a lot of work for very little benefit. When I started to use computers that's all we had, it wasn't really any more simplified than that, and I'm rather tempted to order you off of my lawn. People in this day and age are spoiled and while I don't have any issues with a more prettified install program being added, there just isn't much interest in installing one.

And ultimately, install programs do, like it or not, serve as a bit of a screen to keep people that aren't going to do any work later on out. Sure we could make the install program even easier than the ridiculously easy one we have now, but what happens after the OS is installed? At what point do the developers no longer have to do absolutely everything for the user?

I guess that just doesn't make any sense to me. Just because it's what you had others should have to go through the same learning process? Imagine if finstall was used from the beginning and someone wanted to change it to text, I'm *quite* confident we'd have the same discussion just in reverse. There is *absolutely* no reason why we can't have both.

I'm just like most people. I've been with FreeBSD for many many years and know the sysinstall very well. It's not hard by nature but it is "harder" to figure out what things are and what is required.

Help forums are OPTIONAL and VOLUNTEER. If we get people started with FreeBSD in one way or another isn't that a good thing? And it's not like
sysinstall does what everyone wants it to do by keeping people out of FreeBSD by being something they have to learn. Most of people's responses on here and elsewhere is "man this" "man that". It's not like it would change any of that.

Don't you see that people are desiring some change? I could care less but many people do desire change. That's why other projects are making up for some of the lacking they see such as finstall. PC-BSD uses the gui installer.

We have people talking about how people today are spoiled because TECHNOLOGY ADVANCES? Are you serious? And people say "Thank You" to comments like that because this is some boy's club that we definitely
want to make sure some people are left out of? It's public domain open source stuff. Come on.

What about FreeBSD developers saying sysinstall is a pain in the ass? And that it lacks functionality? Are the nay-sayers really going to stick with their "it's how I learned and by god it's how other people will learn too" mentality?

And ultimately, install programs do, like it or not, serve as a bit of a screen to keep people that aren't going to do any work later on out. Sure we could make the install program even easier than the ridiculously easy one we have now, but what happens after the OS is installed? At what point do the developers no longer have to do absolutely everything for the user?

Someone tell this guy it's not a boy's club. We invite everyone to try FreeBSD and ask questions. We even PROMOTE the asking of questions. If everything was solved by "man this" "handbook that", then the forums, mailing help lists, would be OBSOLETE. Get off the high horse and learn to share.

Sometimes forums really do bring out the flamerness in people.

[Erratus]

I never understand why people feel they should keep things harder just to keep "newbies" out.


This is a well known social psychological phenomenon. When a few achive something that is not that easy to get for the most, there is always a need for time, brain and often money to get it. As they experience similar supreme efforts they are becoming a somehow elitist peer group (We have made it! ).

After some time more people might get easier access to the valuables. Now pioneering feat gets devalued - advantage is likely to shrink ... But, to get at least some fun, newbees are getting some tough time (Read the handbook!).

-Erratus

[robertclemens]

This is a well known social psychological phenomenon. When a few achive something that is not that easy to get for the most, there is always a need for time, brain and often money to get it. As they experience similar supreme efforts they are becoming a somehow elitist peer group (We have made it! ).

After some time more people might get easier access to the valuables. Now pioneering feat gets devalued - advantage is likely to shrink ... But, to get at least some fun, newbees are getting some tough time (Read the handbook!).

-Erratus

I'm just happy to see that someone else understands what people are trying to do. I'd be totally on board with sysinstall to continue as long as it incorporates some much-needed additions.

I just cant fathom the viewpoint that mastering the sysinstall promotes a genius ability to know the os better. Why are these people promoting this kind of "do it yourself" mentality while also JOINING a help forum only to tell people "no help here, figure it out on your own.. I did."

I think you hit the nail on the head with the devaluing of pioneering advances. This is not at all segregated to FreeBSD
by any means but as a reference there are several channels established on irc or help forums that only provide RTFM help.

Not everyone learns through reading everything. If that were the case we'd all have Ph.D's and would have huge libraries and we'd all know everything. That's just not the real world and if a help channel exists, it should be used to help not torment.

[Erratus]

"Why are these people promoting this kind of "do it yourself" mentality while also JOINING a help forum only to tell people "no help here, figure it out on your own.. I did."

This mentality I found on many forums. I got irritated most by some Linux-Communities. And to be clearly speaking my experience till now with this FreeBSD forum is very different and very good, because here most of the answers are straight forward problem solving. Here are people writing who have good knowledge and want to share it. Others keep reading (like myself).

Perhaps some of you want to know, why I choose FreeBSD among the others? Believe it or not, I was attracted by The FreeBSD Handbook. No joke!

And I have read: http://www.freebsd.org/projects/newbies.html#people thinking, this is a good place to be.

-Erratus

[jb_fvwm2]

some bios's have select-from menus on the left,
consequences on the right. I imagine that doable
for Freebsd installs , for xorg.conf, for custom kernels,
the problem would occur where a setting in one panel
would break a setting in another panel. ... So without
the resources to thoroughly test everything, maybe
...
/ instead of my idea above/
/ this different idea below /
....
option... # comment
...... # consequences
...
conf files to subsequently use for the purpose (X or kernel
or install) would be more feasible?
............
just /ideas/

[jackie]

I don't use GUI installer is needed ..Even windows uses text-based installer ...

[Andrius]

jackie, welcome to 2008, where XP is not the only windows OS.
And btw XP switches to graphical mode during the install pretty fast anyway.

PS: I really hope you weren't speaking about anything older than XP...

[jackie]

jackie, welcome to 2008, where XP is not the only windows OS.
And btw XP switches to graphical mode during the install pretty fast anyway.

PS: I really hope you weren't speaking about anything older than XP...

mm: I'am old.. I have give up windows 3 years ,and I know less about windows .

[kamikaze]

Weather sysinstall is a GUI or not, is kinda besides the point. Sysinstall is a crappy GUI. It totally sucks, because it doesn't conform to any users expectations of how a GUI works. The OK/cancel buttons at the bottom are totally confusing and seem to have no function in most menus. However they are needed in some, especially to exit the program at the end.

You have the focus at two points at the same time (in the menu and on one of the buttons). And I never know what will actually happen if I press space or enter.

Sysinstall could be much more easy to use just by getting rid of these two buttons at the bottom.

I always use a console to install FreeBSD. I create the slice, the partitions, install a boot sector and run make installworld installkernel DESTDIR=/mnt/tmp and mergemaster -i -D/mnt/tmp. This is much less confusing.

[alie]

hi

i think we need something like this:
http://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20081215#feature

[kamikaze]

A friend tried that install yesterday, it was a bugridden hell. Install was not possible. It either didn't find the kernel on the CD or asked you to change the CD to the one that was already in the drive. It also locked the drive, so that it couldn't be opened any more, despite the CD no longer being mounted.

And there wasn't anything you were able to configure, I could see, so the article you linked looks kinda ridiculous to me.

We tried a FreeBSD install first. To get X running she needed to install the radeonhd-devel driver, but the wireless NIC is not supported by FreeBSD. This is why she tried Ubuntu, figuring that if radeonhd-devel works under FreeBSD it should be possible to install it under Ubuntu as well.

Hell, were we wrong. It just was impossible to make a CD install. The text mode setup is totally broken and the graphical install doesn't work, because the radeon driver just produces a white screen and hangs there. Ubuntu is a good example of how to keep people from installing.

[Erratus]

You have the focus at two points at the same time (in the menu and on one of the buttons). And I never know what will actually happen if I press space or enter.

Sysinstall could be much more easy to use just by getting rid of these two buttons at the bottom.

Yeah, exactly this sucks. What about creating a usability lab for the installation procedure? Best volunteers for testing are persons who never installed a BSD-System before.

I always use a console to install FreeBSD. I create the slice, the partitions, install a boot sector and run make installworld installkernel DESTDIR=/mnt/tmp and mergemaster -i -D/mnt/tmp. This is much less confusing.

Sounds interesting, but how to to this?

[MP2E]

Some excellent points have been made in this thread, BOTH installers can, and if finstall is put up, will be used. Asking for finstall to be included is NOT forsaking the server managers at all, despite what you guys are seeming to say.

As for the PCBSD or DesktopBSD arguments, I find that they are much too heavy weight(or at least PCBSD was) for older systems(my system that meets the RECOMMENDED requirements for KDE runs extremely slow in comparison), and also it does not offer any lighter weight Window managers. The installer was great, but a tad slow, and the overall system was not as fast as I wanted it to be.

Both finstall and sysinstall would be excellent to have in FreeBSD, and I hope that finstall gets finished soon. :) I'm crossing my fingers that finstall is finished in time for FreeBSD 8.0's release, though honestly I have no idea of the activity of the project, or the development status.

[danger@]

press alt+F2 for example to enter into a console

[hedwards]

I guess that just doesn't make any sense to me. Just because it's what you had others should have to go through the same learning process? Imagine if finstall was used from the beginning and someone wanted to change it to text, I'm *quite* confident we'd have the same discussion just in reverse. There is *absolutely* no reason why we can't have both.
No, and thanks for mischaracterizing me. My point was that we have something which works and we have an OS which offers far more opportunity for customization than others do. With the state of the OS being what it is people that can't or won't deal with sysinstall are probably going to be frustrated.

That's definitely not to belittle the efforts put in, FreeBSD is an amazing OS. It's just lacking things that many desktop users need and while that's the case effort probably would be better spent there. It only takes a couple of times through the install process to figure that out, the rest of the time isn't so straightforward for any OS.
I'm just like most people. I've been with FreeBSD for many many years and know the sysinstall very well. It's not hard by nature but it is "harder" to figure out what things are and what is required.
Harder than what? Seriously the things in the install program which are confusing wouldn't be any less confusing if we had a gui. There'd still be swap, partitions and slices, there'd still be the need to know about disk geometry at times. I'm not really seeing anything in the program which hasn't already been simplified which could readily be simplified.
Help forums are OPTIONAL and VOLUNTEER. If we get people started with FreeBSD in one way or another isn't that a good thing? And it's not like sysinstall does what everyone wants it to do by keeping people out of FreeBSD by being something they have to learn. Most of people's responses on here and elsewhere is "man this" "man that". It's not like it would change any of that.
What precisely doesn't it do, besides look pretty? The only things I've ever seen or heard of it not doing are things which can be done via the fixit disc. And starting next release you'll be able to get a DVD with both discs on the same DVD.
Don't you see that people are desiring some change? I could care less but many people do desire change. That's why other projects are making up for some of the lacking they see such as finstall. PC-BSD uses the gui installer.
There's nothing wrong with change, but the installer is really a minor bump for most people compared to other things that desktop users need. And the developers themselves have placed the GUI install programs on the back burner.
We have people talking about how people today are spoiled because TECHNOLOGY ADVANCES? Are you serious? And people say "Thank You" to comments like that because this is some boy's club that we definitely
want to make sure some people are left out of? It's public domain open source stuff. Come on.
Way to mischaracterize me, you're using the term "Technology Advances" pretty loosely there. Sysinstall does far more than any of the other install programs I've used. Granted it's not pretty, but it is flexible and it does work in a consistent manner.

What about FreeBSD developers saying sysinstall is a pain in the ass? And that it lacks functionality? Are the nay-sayers really going to stick with their "it's how I learned and by god it's how other people will learn too" mentality?
They've got other things to work on. Or at least they have things that they prioritize above replacing sysinstall. Nobody is stopping you or anybody else from doing the work.


Someone tell this guy it's not a boy's club. We invite everyone to try FreeBSD and ask questions. We even PROMOTE the asking of questions. If everything was solved by "man this" "handbook that", then the forums, mailing help lists, would be OBSOLETE. Get off the high horse and learn to share.

Sometimes forums really do bring out the flamerness in people.
Erm, you were the one that started it, I'm just saying that it's not really the highest priority task for most people. If it were then it would be done by now. People are still kicking it around, but the developers have limited time and are choosing to use it as they see fit, I don't see the problem.

And that's historically how it was done. Not saying that's right, just pointing out that there's a huge amount of information out there and a lot of friendly people to answer questions. It was hardly the sort of unapproachable "boy's club" you suggest. That sort of thing hasn't been around for at least a decade and probably longer.

EDIT: And it is worth noting that if that's your idea of a good set up, that's already available, very little of the effort is duplicated and one can even choose to install the set up onto FreeBSD if one chooses.

[robertclemens]

I think its hard for me to "mischaracterize" as you put it when you have the whole thread public and viewable and they can read the entirety in chronological order.

You keep referring to the fact that YOU don't need a change and that YOU are happy and think it's quite the capable installer. That's fine -- except we aren't talking about YOU or even for that matter, ME. We ARE talking about the other users that DO think the installer is cumbersome and HARD to figure out. The installer DOES lack features and is a "Pain In The ASS" as some developers call it.

So it may work just fine for you but that has NOTHING to do with the point. Sysinstall works fine for you and me. But if we are honest, it is not the greatest installer in the world, and it even neglects some very important features for install. Danger@ did point out that you can use console. And I have used it very often for customization. Thank god for the console making up for the extra customization content.

The point is. You seem to be against new installers for all the wrong reasons. You quip back with generic "Nobody is stopping you or anybody else from doing the work." style comments to somehow prove a point. Stay on topic and focus.

I'm fairly certain this thread is beaten like a dead horse and done.

We can agree to disagree. But I think your arguments lack any real evidence of a position outside of your own opinion. We are entitled to our own opinions and I just don't agree with yours.

Good day sir.

[smartly]

http://community.itbbs.cn/attachment.php?attachmentid=5192&d=1229186165

what's it?

[Speedy]

... Another one of "those" threads. Why everybody coming over from different OS wants FreeBSD be similar to what they are used to? Imagine, you are a rap fan, do you go to a classical music club and start telling the music they are listening there sounds all wrong? Why cant you accept diversity is what makes this world richer? Lot's of people love and use FreeBSD as it is, and they enjoy it, why change it to please those used to the different?

[alie]

its not about fan or not, its about usability and user experience. but i think i agree with u guys, i think i dont need GUI/eye catching installer :) i think installer that give me more flexibility & functionality...

-Alie
www.alietan.com

[Speedy]

In actuality, messing with install a little bit will give invaluable experience and knowledge, needed badly to keep up and troubleshoot your system later. This may sound controversial, but for people new to FBSD I'd recommend this: http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/articles/fbsd-from-scratch/index.html ;)

[Kitche]

http://community.itbbs.cn/attachment.php?attachmentid=5192&d=1229186165

what's it?

that is finstall a gui installer that one of the FreeBSD developers is working on.

[alie]

@Speedy: nice, u r correct... Sysinstaller gives me invaluable experience and knowledge :)

-Alie

[trev]

You quip back with generic "Nobody is stopping you or anybody else from doing the work." style comments to somehow prove a point.

It does prove a point. It proves, in the most fundamental way possible, that no-one cares THAT much that they wish to invest the time/money to create/have created for them the [you name it - it doesn't just apply to a new FreeBSD installer].

I find the current sysinstall usable for its purpose both before and after an installation. I'm not alone :) I therefore do not wish to waste my limited time/energy/resources on creating a new one.

I also agree completely with the previous viewpoints that:

1) FreeBSD does not have to be like a new user's previous operating system (witness how the Linux horde is turning Linux into another operating system so that one won't eventually be able to tell the difference. If I want to run another operating system, I will run it - I don't need a quasi-compatible clone);

2) Anyone who is unwilling to experiment/persevere with the installation of FreeBSD using the current installer, is probably NOT going to want to learn enough to actually be able to use the operating system successfully. (This isn't a criticism; some folks don't want to learn how their car works either, they just want to "use it" in which case this car/operating system is not for them.)

And perhaps my experience is also coloured by the fact that the Solaris graphical installer never worked, and the text installer was the only way to generally get the os installed assuming you had the required supported legacy hardware or were really prepared to hack a baffling array of configuration files just to get a network running. FreeBSD is a dream by comparison :)

And finally, yes, I started programming with the command line on a Commodore Vic-20 using CBM BASIC and 6502 machine code. Ah, those were the days...

[tom-pele]

Why a GUI installer?
...
FreeBSD needs to continue it's focus on reliability and flexibility not needless user friendliness.

...

I' don't mind learning from ground up; it's like building a house ground up. So it's should stay that way - reliability first.

[robertclemens]

I figured this topic would be dead. But people keep chiming in on how it shouldn't change and you learn from sysinstall.

Why is it so hard to absorb information into the brain? No one is saying you can only have one install method and a bulky X-based GUI is the way! I take that back -- sysinstall fanboys are screaming sysinstall only and not allowing for other gui install methods to exist.

Both could exist and satisfy all conditions. I still believe the majority would use sysinstall -- that is, if sysinstall fixes some known problems and adds the ability for install-time configuring not allowed previous.

Comments saying "drop to a shell and do install stuff from there" are only half-truths. While a shell to drop to is excellent and I think needed, having to manually install what an installer should do only shows lack of configuration and and failure at its only function.

Stop pretending it has to be one or the other. I don't think that has ever been the case presented nor the path intended. I repeat that the only ones claiming such a scenario are the ones demanding sysinstall remains as the sole installer.

I think I'd love to see a compilation of "knowledge learned" from sysinstall and forcing users to use it. While I don't think you learn nothing from using it. I am hardly convinced sysinstall grants an immeasurable amount of knowledge that can only be obtained by such an installer and thus provides an immense social baptist-by-fire experience of osmosis learning. I think we exaggerate the usefulness of the few steps required by sysinstall.

Frankly I don't give a hoot on the graphical appearance of the installer. I really just want a fully featured installer with the ability to configure all the necessary options as required for the various installs practiced upon the operating system in use. Sysinstall does not currently meet this criteria but if it did then I have no problem being a promoter of its usefulness.

I often use FreeBSD strictly as a server operating system for headless units. I don't ever use graphical implementations on the box ever. The only time a monitor is plugged into the machine is during install, however, which puts all graphically based criterion specifically on the installer. I'd rather not be forced to run a large X-Windows install operation by an only choice but would prefer a similar representative experience within a text-based installer.

Just one last laughable point. To Quote, "FreeBSD needs to continue it's focus on reliability and flexibility not needless user friendliness."

Besides the laudable attempt to intertwine reliability and flexibility of FreeBSD as an OS to the installer, the point is contradicted by flexibility specifically as that is exactly what sysinstall has proven not to be. That even is part of the core debate about sysinstall or have you neglected to read any discussions previously about this?

If you take anything from my discussion, just remember you don't have to pretend the debate is a one-or-nothing installer. Why is it such a terrible situation to have a choice of installation methods? And why does it seem laudable to force a choice on other users just because you had no choice previous? (Actually the last question was pretty eloquently discussed earlier in this thread and seemed to ring true as per this discussion. I bring up this last question for self reflection before people decide to post rantings about "KEEP IT THE SAME! DOWN WITH CHANGE!")

Good day.

[hitest]

I find sysinstall functional and highly reliable. I'm just finishing up an install of 7.1. :-)
However, I do believe there is value in having a graphical installation method available as well as sysinstall. FreeBSD may be able to attract a larger user base if it is easier to use.
I'm not saying that FreeBSD should be PC-BSD, but, that it should allow more choices for users. Gentoo now has a graphical installer.

[Brandybuck]

I'm going to chime too. We still need a text based installer, but a graphical installer would be a welcome bonus. I asked about a GUI installer at the recent MeetBSD event, but was quickly shot down. That's too bad, because the goal isn't one-way-for-everyone, but choice. Why can't I run "sysinstall -g" to get a graphical version?

But in any case, sysinstall is getting dated. There is definitely a need for a sysinstall-ng, with a clean separation of the backend. Then the front end could be ncurses text based, or graphical GTK or Qt. Or even HTML/Javascript for remote installs.

Blindly asserting that the current sysinstall must live on forever and ever, end of discussion, is silly.

[lme@]

The principle of finstall is that you have a backend and a frontend of your choice. So the frontend to finstall can be a GUI, some text based installer, or even a webinterface so that you can install FreeBSD over the network on a headless box.

[irkkaaja]

The principle of finstall is that you have a backend and a frontend of your choice. So the frontend to finstall can be a GUI, some text based installer, or even a webinterface so that you can install FreeBSD over the network on a headless box.
This basic idea is why I'm for finstall replacing sysinstall. Also, there are a few people who claimed sysinstall had a "smaller footprint"-huh? What else are you doing on a box at the same time as installing a new operating system? It's not as if installation is a daily occurence (I damn sure hope not) -
But in any case, sysinstall is getting dated.
Yeah. Plus, it doesn't support ZFS, so it's going to have to be changed anyway.

Oh, and to those who say "use PC-BSD/DesktopBSD": first, DesktopBSD is still based on 6.3, and second, there's a pretty good chance that KDE isn't what user x is looking for. There's a big gap between a default autosetup OS with KDE and one with an ncurses-based installer. finstall doesn't have to come at the cost of other features; it's not a super huge project.
Also, as a final thought: perhaps the GUI frontend for finstall could be based on a lighter-weight toolkit than gtk, like fltk--would that cure concerns about "bloat"?

*in other words, many people don't have the time for

[morbit]

Oh, and to those who say "use PC-BSD/DesktopBSD": first, DesktopBSD is still based on 6.3

Snapshots are based on 7.1 http://ftp.freepark.org/pub/DesktopBSD/snapshots/

[robertclemens]

I didn't expect to see this thread pop up again. I thought the issue was laid to rest.

I think people are completely ignoring the issue this thread addresses.

It addresses the support and sometimes total dismissal of the finstall project to move into production.

The last couple posts are talking about DesktopBSD.
1) This is not FreeBSD and not really relevant.
2) DesktopBSD uses finstall or a variant thereof (I have not
installed DesktopBSD to verify exactness)

So basically we are confronted with the idea that other implementations of FreeBSD into other distributions *all* seem to forgo sysinstall and instead select finstall in its stead.

The point of whether it uses 6.3 or 7.1 or 4.11 as it's base is essentially irrelevant (so although the one poster was slightly behind on the status of the DesktopBSD project, his point wasn't over the version snapshots).

I hate to beat a dead horse over and over again (<sarcasm>as much fun as it is... </sarcasm>) but I feel that when people make attempts to "chime in" to posts they completely neglect the thread's origins and the merit of the discussion at hand. Fact-filling irrelevance does nothing but clutter the thread with many different debates. I think we are back on cue as far as the gui installer idea?

I guess as a side note that we appreciate attempts to "fact-fix" information. I personally don't care about extraneous info unless it affects the discussion at hand.

I almost just deleted this post before submission and leave the thread as is. But I did type this up and so we can all take it or leave it. Enjoy.

[Erratus]

I didn't expect to see this thread pop up again. I thought the issue was laid to rest.

I think people are completely ignoring the issue this thread addresses.

FreeBSD offers a bootonly CD for installation. A good thing cause it's only 30MB small and all other stuff comes up to date via FTP so there is no real need for downloading megasized installation DVDs.

Bad thing is, it uses sysinstall and that has problems with resolving the ftp-servers hostname making the the CD worthless. An example can be found here http://forums.freebsd.org/showthread.php?t=2087. But up to now that issue does not really interest anyone...

[fonz]

Bad thing is, it uses sysinstall and that has problems with resolving the ftp-servers hostname making the the CD worthless.

Yet another complaint about sysinstall...

I can't promise anything yet, but it just might be that during the summer I'll have the time to rework that thing. Should be a fun project to do.

Alphons

[hedwards]

I didn't expect to see this thread pop up again. I thought the issue was laid to rest.

I think people are completely ignoring the issue this thread addresses.

It addresses the support and sometimes total dismissal of the finstall project to move into production.
Honestly, if you'd stop trolling the thread it might be laid to rest. The question was answered a few pages back as to why it we don't have one.

Basically it comes down to:
A) We have a GUI named Sysinstall that works pretty well.
B) The people doing the work have other priorities.
C) People that can't handle Sysinstall, even with all the help, are unlikely to be able to figure out the more complicated challenges after installation.
D) There's a tremendous amount of work that has to be done for an install program like finstall to work properly and consistently, that takes time and energy. Getting it wrong could very well leave us worse off than where we are at the present.

Nobody is seriously suggesting that it wouldn't be nice to have a more pretty and up to date install program. But it's difficult to do that and have something that'll run properly on the older hardware that's still supported.

[Erratus]

Honestly, if you'd stop trolling the thread it might be laid to rest. The question was answered a few pages back as to why it we don't have one.

Basically it comes down to:
A) We have a GUI named Sysinstall that works pretty well.


Hmm, perhaps you did not read all messages. As you could have read sysinstall does not work pretty well!

It is by no means constructive to call other opinions a troll.

[Oko]

Hmm, perhaps you did not read all messages. As you could have read sysinstall does not work pretty well!

It is by no means constructive to call other opinions a troll.

Can you be more specific? What is wrong with sysinstall in your
humbled point of view?

I am not big fun of sysinstall myself. I think it is way too complicated and non flexible. I personally would like to see something simpler like OpenBSD script so that I can actually boot FreeBSD machine with the single floppy disk or in the worst case scenario something like NetBSD installer.

What would you like to see?

[kamikaze]

The double cursor thing is an absolute breach of user expectations. I never know which cursor is the active one.

[Speedy]

Immortal thread, eh?
I said it before and I say it again. If you are new to FBSD and sysinstall is not working for you do manual install (http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/articles/fbsd-from-scratch/why.html) as your first install. Your time will not be wasted, on the contrary, you will know your way around after that and it will save you time and headaches for rest of your life.
Next time you try sysinstall it will work for you, guaranteed. ;)

[kamikaze]

This is not the point. Not using it is not a solution to its problems. Barely any experienced user uses sysinstall.

This should tell us all something about the quality of its interface.

[tangram]

Hey I don't find it bad. Actually I in fact like it.

However it does need to be updated and extended, namely regarding letting one use gjournal, zfs, etc.

[Speedy]

This is not the point. Not using it is not a solution to its problems. Barely any experienced user uses sysinstall.
Obviously I do not qualify as an experienced user then. I use sysinstall to install the base system, then I tweak my make.conf, rebuild the world and proceed with installing software from ports. At this point I could remove it from system because it is not needed any more. For this purpose sysinstall works great for me.
Sysinstall = install the system ... right?
Am I missing something here?

[kamikaze]

Why don't you simply build the system you want instead of installing one and rebuilding it?

[Speedy]

I find the sysinstall is an easy way to have a working platform for install. If you have suggestions how to do the same without sysinstall - I'm all ears!

[kamikaze]

All you need to do is slice and partition the hard drive and run make installkernel installworld and mergemster.

[Speedy]

Wait a minute ... (I do not pretend to be an experienced user, as you rightfully said)
I obviously want to sync the sources first. So it would be like this:
prepare HDD
sync (get) sources
set up make.conf
make buildworld
proceed with what you said

[Speedy]

Nope, I had a chance to think about it. It's not that easy, I'm going to miss lots of stuff in /etc which I have to create manually, etc.

May I ask how you, an experienced user, install FreeBSD?

[mickey]

As was pointed out earlier in this thread, this whole discussion isn't basically about GUI or Text mode, but rather about usability. And when it comes to usability, sysinstall is obviously neither the best choice, nor the worst.

Maybe one needs to rethink the basic goal of an OS installation routine. As I see it, the basic goal is to guide you step by step through the installation process, telling you exactly what is going on, and requesting the information that it needs to fullfill it's task - installing the operating system, while neither overwhelming unexperienced users with lot's of options they don't have the least inkling about, nor keeping experts from choosing the funky options they like.

Having that said, I see two different kinds of problems:


sysinstall in it's current form is not really step by step, but rather entering a big menu of things, giving you this 'now what?' feeling. The navigation, using TAB/SPACE/ENTER is really bad, especially when it comes to the OK/CANCEL buttons, or returning to the previous menu. There are places, where sysinstall provides little to no information to you about what it is expecting you to do, or what kind of information it needs from you in order to continue.
The user has to provide some information. Not being able/willing to provide this information ultimately leads to not being able to install the OS.


The first problem is a sole software problem that can be fixed. The second problem however cannot be fixed, cause there is a subtle difference between a newbie and a person strictly unwilling to learn anything while expecting everything.

To pick up the comparison with a car someone brought up earlier: If you just wanna drive your car, not knowing wether it will take diesel or high-octane fuel and where to refill it, you probably wont get far.

[Speedy]

The first problem is a sole software problem that can be fixed. The second problem however cannot be fixed, cause there is a subtle difference between a newbie and a person strictly unwilling to learn anything while expecting everything.
Let me ask something. Say, a person is 20 years old. Newbie. Using the Handbook and trial'n'error method he finally gets it installed. If he has to do it several times before he gets the desired result - I see no problem. After that he'll know his way around and for next 50 years he does not need any improved installers.
So why it is so important to pay so much attention to that one day he is struggling? Versus decades long use of FBSD where he will have problems, indeed, but all those future problems have nothing to do with sysinstall?
Is FreeBSD aimed at noobs or users?

[Erratus]

So why it is so important to pay so much attention to that one day he is struggling? ...
Is FreeBSD aimed at noobs or users?

As far as I remember, it is a common goal to get new members into the FreeBSD community. We should welcome them. If there is a critical mass of FreeBSD users the day comes when industry will produce needed drivers by their own.

The lack of social competence shown by your contribution is accepted by sense of free speech.

[Speedy]

Years ago I installed FreeBSD very first time. I do not remember having any problems. I usually install every new OS at least twice. First time I go thru all steps to get familiar with process, second time I install it. All I remember about my first FreeBSD install is the first "trial" install went so good I decided to keep it. So sysinstall was OK back then.
How comes it suddenly is no good any more?
Sorry, Erratus, but I think sysinstall is fine and something is wrong with people who are whining about it.

[rghq]

Well - sysinstall always did the job and FreeBSD got installed. Geom / ZFS might be missing - yes, but taking the so called completely "new user", maybe the most important thing for him is to get the OS installed, not play with Geom or ZFS.
Sysinstall is fine for this, maybe not perfect but what is perfect ?

And about a X11 based Installer - personally I see no difference between reading text like "Be careful editing your partitions" on a text console or a X11 window - the text will stay the same.

[SR_Ind]

Why cant you accept diversity is what makes this world richer?

Lot's of people love and use FreeBSD as it is, and they enjoy it, why change it to please those used to the different?

Hmm...did anyone else spot the contradiction here? :P

[SR_Ind]

Years ago I installed FreeBSD very first time. I do not remember having any problems. I usually install every new OS at least twice. First time I go thru all steps to get familiar with process, second time I install it. All I remember about my first FreeBSD install is the first "trial" install went so good I decided to keep it. So sysinstall was OK back then.
How comes it suddenly is no good any more?
Sorry, Erratus, but I think sysinstall is fine and something is wrong with people who are whining about it.

I think people are coming from a LiveCD experience of the Linux world. That causes some undue expectations. In fact a graphical installer make sense when you have actually booted into a X envirionment.

Sysinstall is okay...it will do good with some tweaks in the workflow though.

There is another thread somewhere that talks of more focus on desktop. So there is growing demand.

[Speedy]

Hmm...did anyone else spot the contradiction here? :P

:P You need at least masters degree in demagogy to find it.

[Mel_Flynn]

I like the way the installer is and thinking of FreeBSD as an open source project I'd say that priority must be set to other fields such as less CD's shifting during installation etc.


There is an official DVD since 7.1
If you have more then one machine, you learn to do standard "user" install, no ports, no packages, no /usr/src and mount_nfs those ;)