Re: Graphical install disks Ben Pfaff is doing

[Ben Pfaff <pfaffben@pilot.msu.edu>]

Edward Betts <edward@hairnet.demon.co.uk> writes:

   On Mon, 22 Feb, 1999, Ben Pfaff wrote:
   > No, my current plan is have the graphical boot floppies be a separate
   > set.  They can't work on all computers--just ones with VGA compatible
   > graphics display.  So, for x86 at least, we'd have a series of
   > floppies: standard, tecra, graphical, ...

   EGA? I have at least one server here running with an ATI EGA Wonder, I believe
   it is quite similar to VGA.

EGA will not be hard to do, in fact the vga16 framebuffer supports
both ega and vga, despite the name.

   Could we make graphical the standard and non-graphical the exception? I think
   I would prefer a text based install, but your average non-convert has been
   taught by Microsoft to hate non-graphical interfaces. Maybe start with them
   being an option until they are nice and stable and we have got a fb version of
   apt. 

It's far too soon to make graphical the ``standard''; after all, the
boot disk is not even complete yet.  I'm sure that we'll never
discontinue nongraphical support.  At any rate it's simply a matter of
labeling--we will have a non-graphical floppy and a graphical floppy,
and which one we call ``standard'' is not important.

[...]
-- 
"MONO - Monochrome Emulation
 This field is used to store your favorite bit."
--FreeVGA Attribute Controller Reference