Hey id just like to say this is not a rant or a flame war thread :P

well ive been noticing a rise of popularity of the freebsd project so i figured hey why not install it so i tried and tried and never got it to work =/ ( ive installed everything from slackware to suse ) so i checked out the project called pcbsd and tried it out and wow is all i can say about the installer now what got me thinking is why doesn't freebsd come up with a user friendly installer? if anything it would make the project more and more popular and draw more of a user base.



Thanks

Good point. I also would like that Slackware installer would look more like Anaconda or YaST. Why use command line, ncurses based installers when we have all those fancy gui's?. I think FreeBSD definitely needs a easy, user-friendly installer so we can compete with Windows and Linux, or else it's never will be so popular. Maybe we could start a thread "FreeBSD is not ready for the Desktop".

I hope in time you will realize how bad your question actually is...

I thought the FreeBSD installer was really friendly... I just installed the latest FreeBSD and was impressed with how easy it was. Not sure what exactly made you think of it as user unfriendly?

I agree with the original post i found BSD to difficult to install.it didn't detect my mouse,enternet card nothing, while the linux distros i tried detected everything with no problems.
So i moved on to something else i'm not messing around trying to get things to work when other distro's install with no problems.
Bill

FreeBSD is not a distro...

I find installing FreeBSD almost the same as installing Slackware or Debian. My first ever installation worked firt time round, but I done a bit of reading before attmpting the installation. Anyway if you still want to try *bsd, then take a look at pcbsd. Its suppsed to have a good gui installer and is based on FreeBSD.

I think FreeBSD is as easy to install as any Linux distro. Ok Anaconda is pretty nice.
The installer for FreeBSD allows you to pick and install just what you want. Set up your hard disk the way you want. Has a handbook that is unequaled by Linux that you can study before and after install. Installing more applications after install is unequaled with pkg_add -r.

BSD install is nicer than a Debian install. No worse than a Slack install. Not quite as friendly as Fedora-Centos-RedHat. It's worth suffering through the install for the stability of the machine when your done. No network stalls, browser stalls, downloading stalls etc.

Makes a great box with Fluxbox on top.

My 2 cents.

Some newer BSD's based on FreeBSD use the "BSD Installer" at http://www.bsdinstaller.org/

Yes, I believe that there should be GUI installers that use your computer's potential. It's a waste they stick to text-only forever (that appeal sometimes anyway)

I disagree with everything you just said, except for... no everything ^_^. *BSD has two things in mind: Security and Stability. That makes it ideal for a server (though a few peoples like to run it on the desktop, as I did). Also, most of the servers out there for home and small companies usage, have a very modest hardware. Putting a gui and a fancy installer on it would required better hardware (ala MS) which is waste of money since a Pentium 1 does a great server. Also remote administration is way faster (and easier) through command line. Even MS knows that.

I don't know what is it with peoples trying to make every free OS out there to be used for Desktop purposes with fancy GUI's as KDE and installers. Those OS'es are not made for that or to get high performance frames in Unreal... Using Linux or FreeBSD as Desktop is not the main goal. It just happens to be suitable for Desktops as well because they are very well designed Operating Systems. Apple and Microsoft aim to Desktop usage, so stick with them if fancy gui's and installers are a priority for you.

If FreeBSD supposedly got a fancier installer, peoples would want a fancy package manager (graphical, indeed), then support for Cedega and native ports of games as Doom 3 and Enemy Territory.

I'm glad that FreeBSD guys won't ever listen to threads like these.

Side Note: This is not only directed to primo, but for everyone trying to make a lemonade out of an orange out there...

I agree. I'd rather have a text mode installer than to give up all the computer cycles/space necessary just to make it look pretty. It's got to be functional first (for me anyways), and a large component of "function" for me is running on older (cheaper) hardware. This is especially important in business as I gain an advantage if I only need to spend $500 per box when "the other guy" has to spend $800...

I agree with FreeBSD being quite well-documented and, provided you read the install manual
it is the same as for Debian or Slackware. PCBSD may be great for installation purposes but
no more than for that. It is just the same saying that Knoppix or another Debian-based distro
is Debian, which is not true.
FreeBSD should not be installed because it is 'the next thing' and that one day you fancy installing
it to show your friends you can. This is stupid. Give it a try, but an honest one, and don't complain
about it being difficult because of your own limitations.

cheers

Edit : I have used both PC BSD which borked my system and FreeBSD which did not.

Of course, If there's a GUI, it has to be a functional one which still access the same advanced functions as the ncurses one (which is a GUI too... I just didn't like the ANSI? colored letters)

FreeBSD runs well as a Desktop just like a Pentium1 does as a server...
(sorry if I didn't write it well as english isn't my mother language)


Anyway, the GUI should be optional, and may be used if proper hardware was detected to support it. I understand that the interface it now uses has the purpose to run on almost every machine FreeBSD supports...

Also, Mac is based on Darwin which is based on FreeBSD


I understand the power of the terminal because I use it myself everytime. I just wanted to "denounce" a self-imposed senseless limitation