DragonFly users List (threaded) for 2006-06
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
cover all the bases. Those linux installers have large groups of
people DEDICATED to just working on the installer. Short of us
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
of the system is static because of it).... short of doing that,
will *NEVER* have an installer that achieves the same level of user
Our current installer is wonderful. Not because it is user
(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
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
aren't interested in its clustering and filesystem goals? Well,
reliability is important to. I consider reliability very
fact, but if all I wanted was reliability we would still basically
be running FreeBSD-4.x.
I want clustering. I want ZFS. I want OS virtualization
Dragonfly on top of DragonFly rather then DragonFly on top of
Those are the things I am working towards.