OSNews

I'm not trying to sound "angry" at any users who don't use Linux (several of my examples were from the BSD world anyway). I'm a firm believer that a computer is a tool and everyone should use that tool in the way that helps them get their work done efficiently. Whatever fits your needs, use it.

My point is not that Windows has a bad installer, but that it's not a very flexible one. That being said, it's a very simple one to use (which is in itself kind of a moot point, as many users never install Windows themselves, but buy a pre-installed PC or use a rescue disc).

I think you may have missed part of the point. Your average Joe computer user wants bells and whistles. That's fine. I agree, let him have them! He (or she) doesn't care about what's under the hood and he definitely doesn't want to see the words "segmentation fault" or worse "kernel panic" ... what the heck are those and why should he care? He shouldn't. I completely agree with you, and I'm not trying to say everybody should only use text consoles all the time. But my point is that just because it's text doesn't mean it's bad. I'm tired of people who seem to think that. There are bad GUI installers just like there are bad text installers, and of course there are also examples of excellent GUI installers and excellent text installers.

And I agree with you that bells, whistles, and desktop presence are probably where the money is in the desktop computer market. But one of the points I'm trying to make is that not every OS or distribution is actually trying to get a huge desktop following and conquer that market. If certain potential desktop users of an OS are turned off by a text installer, that's not always the end of the world. Like the thread on the OpenBSD installer says ... the OpenBSD developers probably don't care too much, because they have an installer that allows the average OpenBSD user to get the job done.