The thread seems to have digressed (devolved) into an obsessive focus on GUI installers, which really has nothing to do with the functionality of the OS. That said, I agree with the suggestions of an optional GUI installer or simply an improved text installer but, whether implemented or not, has no bearing on the usability of the operating system once installed (or at all) [*]. I would likely use a GUI installer 25% as often as the text version because most of my FreeBSD installs are on servers; the GUI version would only be used on home/desktop PCs. Nevertheless, installation might constitute about 0.0000001% of the time spent using FreeBSD for most users, I presume, and is not a very difficult procedure anyway.
A GUI does not translate to "dumb" or "simple" either. Similarly, it doesn't need to limit potential or detract from TUI or CLI based usability; in most cases it is simply a matter of convenience, which is not unusual these days and need not translate to laziness or inability. Further, and this has already been stated but worth reiterating, persons who lack experience and technical proficiency in computers are not necessarily "dumb" and may well possess many more points of intelligence than your typical "power user".
[*] Some of the suggestions and comments I like:
When it's all said and done, choosing to use an OS on the basis of its installer, I would think, is not prudent and I don't choose to use FreeBSD because it uses a text-based installer and by extension create the perception that the OS and its userbase are more advanced. Similarly, I wouldn't choose to use another OS because it does possess GUI installer capabilities (if an installer is even a capability of the OS) and by extension make the OS and its userbase less advanced. Broadly speaking, a GUI can utilize all the power of the CLI while making it simpler, quicker and more accessible but would require a lot of coding time that would be better spent elsewhere, I would think.
tl;dr: convenient != dumb
A GUI does not translate to "dumb" or "simple" either. Similarly, it doesn't need to limit potential or detract from TUI or CLI based usability; in most cases it is simply a matter of convenience, which is not unusual these days and need not translate to laziness or inability. Further, and this has already been stated but worth reiterating, persons who lack experience and technical proficiency in computers are not necessarily "dumb" and may well possess many more points of intelligence than your typical "power user".
[*] Some of the suggestions and comments I like:
- More comprehensive installation notes/information during install procedure.
- GUI partitioning functionality: this can certainly make the partitioning process easier without losing capability at all.
- In some cases, vision impairment may benefit from GUI versus TUI.
- Accommodating less technically aware users does not "dumb down the system" or exemplify the whole userbase.
- The lightweight base system is appealing; developing a GUI installer that is separate from the base system is a good idea.
- The presumption that an inability to install an OS that relies on text-based installers should disable you from installing any OS is unfounded; there are millions of people who use computers for any number of reasons who probably couldn't even install an OS that uses a GUI installer.
- The use of a mouse does not imply inability; however, for some users a mouse may improve accessibility.
- A GUI might decrease install time and increase capabilities for less technically skilled users. I would consider this a positive; accommodating more users translates to more exposure and may increase funding. The inverse, however, is not true: a GUI installer will not increase install time or decrease capabilities for more technically skilled users.
- Drop-down menus, radio buttons, pre-fabricated installations (encrypted, /var /tmp /home / etc. partitions) would all be very nice and not limit the user's or the operating system's ability at all.
When it's all said and done, choosing to use an OS on the basis of its installer, I would think, is not prudent and I don't choose to use FreeBSD because it uses a text-based installer and by extension create the perception that the OS and its userbase are more advanced. Similarly, I wouldn't choose to use another OS because it does possess GUI installer capabilities (if an installer is even a capability of the OS) and by extension make the OS and its userbase less advanced. Broadly speaking, a GUI can utilize all the power of the CLI while making it simpler, quicker and more accessible but would require a lot of coding time that would be better spent elsewhere, I would think.
tl;dr: convenient != dumb