hi ya christian
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004, Christian Convey wrote:
> I used Sarge's new installer, which I think most people reckon to be
> pretty good. And yet I've still had these issues.
i dont like sarge's (new) installer which is basically the same
as the previous installers with a few (major) tweeks/fixes
issues i had with the ones "new installer" when i playd with it ..
- it doesn't like xfs, jfs, reiserfs, ..
( all of um boots as /boot and/or "/" )
- i didn't get to test sw-raid install, but presumably
works from other peoples posts
- i don't use lvm so its a non-issue for me
- i want the installer to be a standalone/rescue disk
so that i can twist and jump over hoops to allow me to
manually make it do the other stuff it doesn't do correctly
- anything that is inflexible that only allows you only the
"OK" button vs other options is a bad thing
- it should let you out of the install to fix things
the right way before continuing
- choose which loader: grub/lilo/silo/etc ...
- choose which mta: exim/sendmail/postfix
- choose which fs: ext3, reiser, xfs, jfs, ..
- choose which lpd: cups, lpr, lprng, ..
- choose which sound: alsa, oss, ..
- which packages to install
- partition mechanism was whacky from what i recall
- choose .. blah ..
- doing the choosing, the installer can and should pretest
that the apps supports the hardware like it does with the X11
testing of the various resolutions vs installing the default
that may or may not work
> I'm not complaining - I get far more than what I paid for with Debian.
yup..
c ya
alvin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
