Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 3rd Apr 2009 22:45 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 356997
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.





Member since:
2008-07-15
Well, strictly speaking, the graphical installer in Ubunt isn't what allows you to browse the internet. It's the fact that the CD is a live Ubuntu environment. They could just as easily run a text-based installer in a terminal window if they wanted, but they might as well make it graphical, seeing as how the environment is ready and able to accomodate it anyhow.
The graphical installers I hated were the type that weren't a live environment, typically supported much less hardware (in both their kernel and X configuration) than their fully installed environment, and generally caused hell because of it: anything from failure to load the X server, a frozen system, or crashes mid way through. These were the types of installers that Fedora/Red Hat used to have, and I believe they still have them though Fedora also now has a Live CD. Fortunately, in Linux, most distributions have moved to Live installers now and, in the case of the three main BSDs, their installs are text-based.
I, for one, think that Free/Net/OpenBSD should always keep their text-based installers, even if they eventually focus on graphical ones. The BSDs serve very well, naturally, as a server and text-based installs are very handy when installing on to various headless servers or needing to install remotely. Any os or distribution that claims to be server-oriented should never abandon a text-based installation process, they really can get you out of some tight spots.