s. keeling wrote:
Incoming from Patrick Donker:While you're at, could somebody explain to me why it is concidered to be lame asking for a gui installer? I have never quite understood why it isTurn it around. Ask what is to be gained from a GUI installer. Off the top of my head, I'd compare SuSE' YAST to YAST2. The latter was slower, used more resources, demanded X, did less, and looked prettier. Whoopee.
In the past week I've done two GUI installs. Both were easier than d-i. a. SuSE 9.0. b Progeny 2 beta .a was on a Penium III, 128 Mb with W98 installed on a 20 Gb disk. I intended to trash it, but Yast offered to resize it. All I had to do was drag a slider knob along to the size (ratio) I wanted.. Partitioning was trivial.
I'd never seen the installer before,and I found it nice to be able to click on various links and have a look around without committing myself to anything. b was another P III, no windows this time. The installer is Anaconda which I used in its GUI mode - I was wondering whether it would run in 128 Mbytes. It does, and it worked well. I had no difficulties, but then this is the RH installer I"ve used for years.
Anaconda has a text-mode, and can run in a fully automatic mode too. To help me repeat _this_ configuration it stored the conifig file it generated in ~root.
The only thing against GUI installers is the amount of RAM they require. However, for new machines that's completely unimportant.
I note that Patrick "Thats why I said that I'd prefer a good txt installer over a poor gui one" is running Windows.
-- Cheers John -- spambait 1aaaaaaa@computerdatasafe.com.au Z1aaaaaaa@computerdatasafe.com.au Tourist pics http://portgeographe.environmentaldisasters.cds.merseine.nu/