[TriLUG] different versions of 7.2 for sale]
Wed, 31 Oct 2001 00:36:56 -0500
I tend to agree, and perhaps, the installer should not be so disposable.
Much of the Redhat text-mode installer is modular, and those utilities
can be found / used at any time. This modular format makes sense to me,
as long as the parts are well designed to begin with. If the system
configuration tool(s) used much of the same code as the installer, it
would be easier on the developers and the users alike. Less duplication
of code and less confusion in learning many different ways of doing
exactly the same thing.
Just a random thought...
John Beimler wrote:
> begin quotation from Brent Fox <firstname.lastname@example.org> [on 011030 22:09]::
>>I don't know why you feel it is your duty to talk them into Mandrake.
>>There's so much more to a distro than the installer, which is essentially a
>>throw-away piece of software. You install the box, and you don't see the
>>installer again until you upgrade.
> ok, I have to jump in now..
> The installer is incredibly important, otherwise everyone would (IMHO) be
> using Debian. (Slow stable update issues aside) They have the largest base
> building and testing the packages, and the suite of package tools rivals the
> BSD ports collection. The BSDs are another group of OS's whose main stream
> use is slowed by the installer.
> I would wager that the install is a very important piece of software, I have
> yet to work anywhere where a default load of any OS is actually used to
> run any computers in house. So someone is either going to have to run the
> installer for each new/replacement server, or have some sort of disk image
> to install. I've seen the imaging in use for PCs, but I have yet to meet
> a sysadmin that doesn't reload the OS to meet the needs for that server and
> its particular situation. I have become intimately familiar with a number
> of OS's install apps. I would like to avoid them, but even in large companies
> there is no way to avoid them.
> TriLUG mailing list