Linked by Paul Hankes Drielsma on Tue 15th Apr 2003 06:40 UTC
I can't take anymore comments like "Debian/Gentoo/OpenBSD/etc. are not good/user-friendly because they lack a graphical installer." Searching the web, I couldn't find a comprehensive site describing the good and the bad about graphical installers for various OSes throughout the years, so in this article I hope to debunk a few of the myths on the basis of my own personal and professional experience.
Permalink for comment
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
OMFG!!!
Sorry this just annoyed me immensely - has this guy USED a text installer???
Will MS-DOS 3.x manual install ( fdisk, format etc) count for using a CLI installer?
Will Redhat 5.2 installation count for using a text installer?
I was talking not only about installers, but also about CLI vs GUI tools in common.
A CLI install (al la gentoo / LFS) is NOT the same as a Text install al la slack,FreeBSD,Debian etc.
No argument here.
Obviously he hasn't used one of these installers or he would realise the difference between a gui install and a text install basically the pretty graphics.
If this is the only difference, it only means that the particular GUI installer is bad. GUI as such provides for a lot of possibilities to make user's life easier ( and harder as well). Graphics may be ( and is ) very informative, if used right.
The slackware installer couldn't be easier to use.
To each his own. I'm pretty experienced with text, CLI and GUI installers ( doing all kinds of installations for around 12 years ), and I prefer good GUI, but wouldn't refuse good CLI or good text, operative word being "good".