On Fri, Jul 10, 1998 at 04:30:12AM -0700, Todd Whitesel wrote:
> In the installer, it definitely is. Once you manage to get the partitions and
> disklabel set up just right, things work very well. But that's a big leap on
> some systems.

Yeah. Especially when you tell the system some geometry as you think
it is right and it then tells you that is not, but won't tell you how
to make it better.
The other problem is that you only see that you did a mistake after
installing the three basic sets which makes some long cycle times of
try and error ;-(

> actually, because when I am trying to diagnose things from the DOS side, all
> my disks show up as something sensible, and programs like the win95 installer
> do not decide that they are unformatted and should be 'fixed' for me. (!!)

As I wrote in an earlier mail, I don't have DOS/Win.

So IMHO a good thing would be to have two ways to do it. One is the
1.0 way of directly writing the boot information and the other one is
the 1.3 way (a little bit enhanced to give better support).

> Agreed. I bought a FreeBSD book just to get ideas from their installer. I

But then - won't people just install FreeBSD when they already have
that book?

 Heiko

-- 
          See <a href="http://www.netbsd.org">NetBSD</a> for a multiplatform OS
Zum Beispiel die meisten Autofahrer. Heute erst wieder hat mich einer ueber-
sehen. Sie blinken nicht, sie schauen nicht, und fahren trotzdem. (frei nach 
Matth. 6.27)     -- Juergen Ernst Guenther in <4trooe$ibv@asbach.nbg.sub.org>