DragonFly BSD
DragonFly users List (threaded) for 2006-06
[Date Prev][Date Next]  [Thread Prev][Thread Next]  [Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: BootBlocks.

From: John Von Essen <john@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2006 14:39:28 -0400

The KISS method is something rarely followed these days.

One of the reasons why I liked FreeBSD's sysinstall is that it is simple, I rarely use all of its features. Just Custom -> Minimal -> Partition -> Commit -> and Reboot!

The install takes about 3 minutes! I can rollout 20 FreeBSD systems in just over an hour. Pkg level customization can easily be scripted after that via ports. Compare that to a Redhat installer which can take 45 minutes from start to finish.

I hope the DFly installer remains simple. It just has to setup boot loader, allow user to partition disk to their liking, then make a filesystem and install core OS. Thats it.

Its up to debate what the "core" OS will include (sendmail vs exim vs nothing, will perl be there, and so on). But trying to make an installer that will allow you to add/remove pkg's during the initial setup is a complete waste of time. Just reboot and do it once the system is up via the DFly pkg system - whatever that may be.

In a perfect world, I would love the installer to remain text-based and simple. And in an even more perfect world, have something similiar to /usr/ports to work from once the system is up.


On Jun 3, 2006, at 2:12 PM, Matthew Dillon wrote:

It's irrelevant. You can hardly expect a small project like ours to
cover all the bases. Those linux installers have large groups of
people DEDICATED to just working on the installer. Short of us dropping
everything and putting all our resources for the next year into the
installer (at which point I might ask: Why are we bothering if the rest
of the system is static because of it).... short of doing that, DragonFly
will *NEVER* have an installer that achieves the same level of user

Our current installer is wonderful. Not because it is user friendly
(it isn't, necessarily), but because a small group of people were
able to work it up in a few months and because it does precisely what
we intended for it to do. Nothing fancy, nothing spectacular... it
just does its job and does it reasonably well.

For that matter, you have to ask yourself: Why use DragonFly if you
aren't interested in its clustering and filesystem goals? Well, ok,
reliability is important to. I consider reliability very important, in
fact, but if all I wanted was reliability we would still basically just
be running FreeBSD-4.x.

I want clustering. I want ZFS. I want OS virtualization (Zen-like, but
Dragonfly on top of DragonFly rather then DragonFly on top of Linux).
Those are the things I am working towards.


[Date Prev][Date Next]  [Thread Prev][Thread Next]  [Date Index][Thread Index]